Anarchism must be combined with some self-organizing principles to work.

For example, in an anarcho-capitalist world "shame" and "shunning" are effective deters to the war-lord effect just as trust is an effective deterent against bad behavior. If the average individual, which includes the average wealthy citizen, believes theft and murder are wrong and should be punished socialy either by public ridicule or personal avoidance then the system has a check against violence.

In a society of free-association, people are free to cease associating with evil-doers. Such a system necessitates brainwashing, such as through religion, of the general population. It can be difficult conquering the world when your "army" refuses to fire on innocent people simply defending their own property. Sure, you will just pay them more money but they will still have that unsure feeling about the work, making them eager to retreat while those fighting for "what is right" will be more likely to fight to the death. The brainwashing doesn't need to work on everyone, just enough of the population to ensure a critical mass of individuals "fighting for truth and justice" to deter individuals "murdering for personal gain."

I can easily think of many ways in which concientious individuals can twart an up-and-coming emperor. His banker refuses to accept his deposits and call all his loans, his investors get skiddish and flee, he is berrated in the local press, his workers seek alternate employment, his renters move away. In some sense, these individuals would be acting in self preservation because by punishing the perpetrator they avoid punishment by association. "Hey, why are you working for/with so-and-so? Don't you know how he treats people that get in his way? I just cannot do business with people that condone that behavior."

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/3/2005 11:19:17 PM

Its worse then that.

You can't support even an agricultural society without a government of some sort. Only small nomadic communities would be able to exist.

11/3/2005 11:20:43 PM

Quote :

"anarcho-capitalist"

I have a lot of trouble imagining an anarchist society with private property.

11/3/2005 11:21:37 PM

If you steal my stuff either me or my neighbor will shoot you. How do you think drug-lords manage to own nice things while living in the ghetto? What is considered theft? Ask your mother. What is a justified shooting? Ask my mother.

11/3/2005 11:23:48 PM

Quote :

"You can't support even an agricultural society without a government of some sort. Only small nomadic communities would be able to exist."

Why? With enough guns I think I can hold the hoards at bay.

11/3/2005 11:28:41 PM

You guys are thinking too small, too localized and throwing in fantasy elements which operate on the false assumption that humanity as a whole could operate only under rational, logical thought. History proves this is not the case. Everything you've stated has existed from the dawn of civilization to the Native American communities of North America. Always the tendancy is towards government and proper order being established.

You mentioned druglords which proves me point. They can leave cars with 10$ worth of coke in the street and not have it stolen. Why? Because they've already established order through fear: Stell his shit, you die. Is that an anarchy? No. In any society, no matter how decrepid there is an established social order.

There are mothers in the world that wouldn't object to shooting Jews, or Muslims, or Westerners.

11/3/2005 11:29:15 PM

Quote :

"You guys are thinking too small, too localized"

well that much is true, you wouldn't have large interconnected societies.

Quote :

"They can leave cars with 10$ worth of coke in the street and not have it stolen. Why? Because they've already established order through fear: Stell his shit, you die. Is that an anarchy? No."

by the same logic, it's a law that everyone must go inside when it rains becuase we are afraid of getting wet and sick based on precedent. Just because you have some motivation to do something doesn't mean that motivation is a law.

11/3/2005 11:33:36 PM

^ He didn't use the word law once, why did you turn around and use it so many times?

If it is social convention for neighbors to look out for each others stuff that doesn't make it a law, it makes it a social convention.

All anarchism means is a lack of government, not a lack of social conventions. Like I said, the word is usually joined with something to describe the form of the self-organizations.

Anarcho-communism usually involves people being motivated by a sense of community to just volunteer to do good works for society without worrying about themselves. Anarcho-capitalism usually involves people being motivated by self-profit and self-preservation to both serve the community and punish the untrustworthy. etc. etc.

11/3/2005 11:44:04 PM

because earlier he was getting at how social conventions and protocol eventually leads to law. I think the gangster thing was supposed to be an example of that. Not to steal drugs is "gangster law."

11/3/2005 11:48:02 PM

Quote :

"Anarcho-communism usually involves people being motivated by a sense of community to just volunteer to do good works for society without worrying about themselves."

I disagree with this statement. I think most anarcho-communists would be motivated primarily by self-interest. They realize that in order to survive they need the help of the group. They also know that if they expect to receive help they also have to give it. So their reason for doing so is really self-preservation.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 11:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2005 11:52:10 PM

Anyway

With a 6.6billion population

Nothing without government would function in this world.

So this thread really is pointless.

11/4/2005 12:00:07 AM

how come such things have and DO exist?

you're just ignoring them

11/4/2005 12:24:23 AM

please give some examples.

i'm wagering that there are none of significant size and longevity.

11/4/2005 12:26:15 AM

the Anabaptists
the Diggers
pre-1756 Pennsylvania
Finland before the Swedish conquest in 1100

11/4/2005 12:32:01 AM

Quote :

"For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. ~ Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1792 "

11/4/2005 12:32:49 AM

Quote :

"If you try to use violence to force people to do what you want, then you'll be met with violence."

Then the stability of your society rests on the belief that a few unorganized indivuals would be willing an able to defeat an armed and organized mafia? I don't see that happening. People don't have the foresight to band together when it isn't directly in their self interest, this is the very purpose of government.

Quote :

"For example, in an anarcho-capitalist world "shame" and "shunning" are effective deters to the war-lord effect just as trust is an effective deterent against bad behavior. If the average individual, which includes the average wealthy citizen, believes theft and murder are wrong and should be punished socialy either by public ridicule or personal avoidance then the system has a check against violence."

Being a druglord or a mafia kingpin is looked down upon in our current society as well. That certianly doesn't stop them in the slightest bit. With enough money you can buy your honor back.

Quote :

"Such a system necessitates brainwashing, such as through religion, of the general population."

Unfortunately you have two kinds of brainwashing at work here, your one conditioning "righteousness" and then the one that capitalism creates, GREED.

You don't think with enough money you could control this brainwashing system?

Organization WILL happen, there's no stopping it, simply put, order functions better than chaos, and put up agianst one another, order will always defeat chaos. We have seen this battle play out time and time agian.

Quote :

"If you steal my stuff either me or my neighbor will shoot you."

Your neighbor won't do shit. It's not in his best interest. All I have to do to steal your stuff is kill you first.

Quote :

"the Anabaptists the Diggers pre-1756 Pennsylvania Finland before the Swedish conquest in 1100"

There is a great deal of difference between the circumstances those functioned and the way the world works now. The world was a lot bigger during those times. It's impossible to have communities so independant of the rest of the world as those were.

If you guys want a good case study look at the wild west.

11/4/2005 12:59:25 AM

so America during the Revolutionary War was small and generally isolated from the world/

11/4/2005 1:21:56 AM

Quote :

"Your neighbor won't do shit. It's not in his best interest. All I have to do to steal your stuff is kill you first."

Which explains the prevalence of neighborhood watch programs.

11/4/2005 2:51:51 AM

Quote :

"so America during the Revolutionary War was small and generally isolated from the world"

The communities were, thats why the idea of local governments seemed so obvious to the people. It took a long time to travel from Maine to Georgia. However we soon found the advantages of a federal government binding us together, namely that it could enforce itself.

Quote :

"Which explains the prevalence of neighborhood watch programs."

Neighborhood watch programs only involve calling the cops, your idea involves killing people and risking your life.

11/4/2005 9:24:16 AM

I can spot an anachronism a mile away.

11/4/2005 9:31:03 AM

^^ If there were no police, people might be more willing to help out when someone is getting attacked/robbed. The reason for that would be that if you don't help them, there won't be anyone to help you.

My idea of private property under an anarchist community is just that if you have immediate use of something then it's pretty much yours while you're using it but anything else should be freely given. This in itself would decrease the amount of robberies because say (and this is probably a bad example) I'm not using my stereo and someone else wants to have a stereo, they don't have to steal one because they can just use mine. Also, it wouldn't be "my" stereo, it would just be a stereo that is available to me for use.

11/4/2005 1:39:34 PM

I fully support the concept of private ownership of property

and so do some anarchists

however, I think if you own land and aren't developing it you don't own it

11/4/2005 2:19:57 PM

yea, that's pretty much what I was getting it.

11/4/2005 2:21:22 PM

its not like there is communal property though
and turning a profit isn't a bad thing either

but the resources that are available belong to everyone

11/4/2005 2:31:06 PM

Quote :

"how come such things have and DO exist? you're just ignoring them "

Whether something exists or not is irrelevant. There are thousands upon thousdands of impractical social behaviors that exist in the world and I have no reason to address any of them. What you cannot do, and this is because its impossible, is argue that the population of the world as it stands could be supported by any form of anarchism.

You cannot argue that as more people inhabit the earth and begin to use more resources that we as humans, barring massive scientific and technological expansion in a short time, can have anything but a society with even stricter controls and less freedoms.

11/4/2005 3:35:58 PM

I suppose you're right... considering that government as it stands came about through Natural Law

and was in no way created or influenced by groups of people

11/4/2005 3:47:13 PM

Anarchy isn't chaos and disorder. States are.

States don't protect us from crime, they create and encourage it. People respond to incentives. When states criminalize products and services that there is a demand for, like drugs and sexual favors, they don't eliminate these victimless "crimes." What they do is push them underground, creating hugely profitable black markets. These back markets, because of the government crackdown, lack many of the stabalizing social factors that an open economy can rely on, such as contracts, mediation or knowledge sharing. Violence becomes the normal mode of interaction, and the futile attempt to stamp out a victimless crime results in a surge in real crime. Because the criminals are making more than the cops and bureaucrats charged with enforcing the law, corruption inevitably sets in. Mob bosses can take dozens of arrests to be tried, numerous trials to be convicted, assuming they ever are at all

Redistributionist welfare programs undermine the very fabric of a stable and orderly society, the network of family and community ties that bind together even a stated civilization. A "social safety net" reduces the cost of neglecting one's family and friends. As anyone whith any knowledge of economics can tell you, this will tend to increase neglect. Social security, in specific, reduces the incentive of parents to care for their children because they are no longer as dependent on them for their future well-being. At the same time, it reduces the incentive of children to care for their elders, instead passing them off as the responsibility of the state.

At the same time, progressive taxation systematically punishes the characteristics that a stable and orderly society needs most in order to thrive. Thrift, far-sightedness, ambition, hard-work, saavy, personal responsibility, planning and investment are systematically discouraged. Meanwhile dozens of dole-out programs systematically reward sloth, shortsightedness, irresponsibility, ill health, incompetance, ignorange and ineptitude. By punishing future-orientation, rewarding present orientation, a "live in the moment" mentality, and fostering an entitlement complex, the state only makes crime more prevalent. If someone feels entitled to something from society, wants their gratification now, and is incapable of or unwilling to consider the future consequneces, then breakiing into your house to rip you off is a logical next step.

In the meantime, the government protects criminals from law-abiding citizens by restricting their access to firearms and other weapons. Once again, it's simple economics, if fewer people have guns, crime is less dangerous. If it's less dangerous, it's more likely to happen. Waiting periods, background checks, storage requirements, concealed carry permits - with their fingerprints and registration - and other bureacratic barriers undoubtedly keep some people who would otherwise own guns or cary them from doing so. Far more egrigious, however, is the ban on so-called "saturday-night specials", low cost guns that are often all poor people in the most dangerous and crime-ridden neighborhoods can afford. None of these restrictions, however, seem to deter many criminals from acquiring and carrying arms.

All of this doesn't even take into consideration the trillions the government annually steals as taxes in order to provide us with these wonderful services. This does not include the homes and businesses confiscated under eminant domain and given or sold to those with more connections than us. It does not include the billions in private property that is annually confiscated under asset forfeiture laws, usually without even going to trial. It doesn't include the tens of thousands of terminally ill patients each year who are denied the drugs that could save them by the FDA, because "they might not be safe". It doesn't include the lives ruined by arrest and incarceration for non-violent offenses that harm no one. It doesn't include the Americans and Iraqis who are daily being killed in a pointless war that we were lied into because there was no real justification available. It doesn't include the people who die because they can't afford the healthcare that the government has so royally fucked up in this country. No, even if you don't view the government itself as criminal, the conclusion that most of our crime is caused or enabled by the government is inescapable.

11/4/2005 4:04:39 PM

Right.

Like I said, you can't intelligently argue that anarchy can support the current Human population.

11/4/2005 4:39:37 PM

^ By itself, of course not. But throw in some capitalism we'll have corporate farming and "Half off marijuana at Kroger!!!"

11/4/2005 8:15:29 PM

after seing Sympathy for Mr. Vengence I can tell you that fucking with anarchists is NOT a good idea

11/4/2005 8:20:26 PM

Quote :

"You cannot argue that as more people inhabit the earth and begin to use more resources that we as humans, barring massive scientific and technological expansion in a short time, can have anything but a society with even stricter controls and less freedoms."

Yes, I can absolutely argue the contrary. Even turning over more control of society and the economy to the world's smartest and most compassionate individuals would not improve our lot. They may be smart, and they may have only the best of intentions, but they can't be everywhere and know everything. They can't, for instance, know whether I would prefer a peppermint candy or a butterscotch unless I tell them. And they certainly can't gather and weigh this information for every individual on earth and come up with an intelligent five-year candy plan that would come even remotely close to the results of just letting everyone pick their own candy in the marketplace. Plus, in practice, the world's smartest and most compassionate never get the reigns of power. It's always the most ruthless, the most duplicitous, the most unprincipled. I say, fuck that.

A growing population doesn't change anything. Scarcity of resources has always been an issue and will always be an issue. That's why we have an economy, to deal with the issue of scarcity. If there was no scarcity, there would be no need for trade, no need for production, no need for investment, no need for research or development, no need for work, no need for money, we would all just have everything that we wanted. That's not the case, so the question becomes, what's the best way to deal with the issue of scarcity?

The best way is to allow every individual the liberty to pursue the fulfillment of their own needs and wants. After all, no one is in a position to know what those are and how to satiate them better then the person who has them. Each individual is most likely to know how a limited amount of resources can best be allocated to satisfy themselves. This is not to say they will always do this wisely. People can be foolish, they can squander their resources, they can make errors of judgement. However, no central authority has any hope at all of doing better than people can do for themselves.

What we need is more freedom, not bondage. What we need is more decentralized decision-making, not central planning. A more complex, advanced, sophisticated and populous society only makes the job of the central planner the more difficult, the consequences of his failure the more disastrous, and the necessity of individual freedom the more urgent.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ']

11/5/2005 12:04:45 AM

Quote :

"The reason for that would be that if you don't help them, there won't be anyone to help you."

People don't do that. People look after personal self interest. Only a government has the foresight to look after the long term best interests for everyone. People in a capitalist system function by the Prisoner's Delimma. In this case a man would choose to not deal with rather than having to possibly deal with it in the future. Although the greatest ultimate gain for all parties would be the first, any individual will choose option two because it best suits them immediately.

Quote :

"My idea of private property under an anarchist community is just that if you have immediate use of something then it's pretty much yours while you're using it but anything else should be freely given."

Then you are an anarchist psuedo communist. You don't believe in ownership, but only use. So in this case I would ask, how do you enforce this? What if I decide I'm going to keep this food regardless of whether I'm going to eat it right now?

Quote :

"Anarchy isn't chaos and disorder. States are."

Nice way to totally avoid the issue.

We are explaining why anarchism doesn't work and you somehow defend it by pointing out the flaws in the current state. That doesn't work. This state being bad in no way implies that anarchism is good.

Quote :

"Scarcity of resources has always been an issue and will always be an issue. That's why we have an economy, to deal with the issue of scarcity. If there was no scarcity, there would be no need for trade, no need for production, no need for investment, no need for research or development, no need for work, no need for money, we would all just have everything that we wanted. That's not the case, so the question becomes, what's the best way to deal with the issue of scarcity?"

When I addressed the problem I looked at it in a drastically different and far more insightful way.

Rather than saying "How should we deal with scarcity" I asked myself "Why do we deal with scarcity". We have enough resources to fill all of our needs, the only problem here is wants, and the human mind seems more than malleble enough to deal with that.

Quote :

"What we need is more freedom, not bondage."

What you don't understand is that more freedom leads to more bondage. What we need to do is simply apply the bondage properly.

Humans, if left to their own device will rule over one another. It seems strange to me that you assume so much about greed yet you completely ignore this reoccuring theme in mankind.

11/5/2005 1:03:13 AM

Quote :

"Nice way to totally avoid the issue. We are explaining why anarchism doesn't work and you somehow defend it by pointing out the flaws in the current state. That doesn't work. This state being bad in no way implies that anarchism is good."

The following is a hypothetical exchange.

Me: The house is on fire, quick, put it out!
You: What are we going to replace the fire with?
Me: Are you joking? It's about to consume everything!
You: That's a problem, yes, but it in no way implies that the lack of fire would be preferable.

11/5/2005 6:44:17 AM

Quote :

"Only a government has the foresight to look after the long term best interests for everyone."

yes, because the government is going to look after my interests better than I am.

Why is it so hard to imagine people helping each other? Do any of you have friends? Have you ever helped one of them? Why did you do it?

11/5/2005 10:14:50 AM

Quote :

"The following is a hypothetical exchange. Me: The house is on fire, quick, put it out! You: What are we going to replace the fire with? Me: Are you joking? It's about to consume everything! You: That's a problem, yes, but it in no way implies that the lack of fire would be preferable."

Your analogy fails because anarchy is drasitcally different from not being on fire. Namely no modern nation adheres to it. Me saying that capitalism sucks does not imply that communism is better, it only means capitalism sucks. So if you actually want to defend anarchy why don't you try defending it rather than telling about how bad government is?

Quote :

"yes, because the government is going to look after my interests better than I am."

It doesn't look after your best interests, it looks after everyone's collective best interests. Simply look at the prisoner's delimma, the government can make people act in a way that best benefits everyone.

Quote :

"Why is it so hard to imagine people helping each other?"

You should ask an economist this. You should say "there isn't going to be poor people because people will help each other out of the goodness of their heart". People in a capitalist nation tend to act only in self interest. In fact, they act in this manner so often it is best to simply assume that will be the way they act in any situation.

Quote :

"Do any of you have friends? Have you ever helped one of them? Why did you do it?"

This would be called anecdotal evidence, certainly not the strongest form of evidence, and CERTAINLY not strong enough to be the main support for an entire sociopolitical system.

I have had plenty of experiences both ways, niether proves anything.

11/5/2005 10:57:00 AM

this is good stuff... keep it coming

if anybody wants to write any manifestos I'd love to check it out

11/5/2005 7:05:54 PM

I'd be happy to give mine on why anarchy doesn't work:

"Anarchy doesn't work because you cannot enforce it"

11/6/2005 1:20:05 AM

This may have been noted, but politics on the international scale is anarchy.

Anarchy doesn't work because human systems tend to stabilize with some form of leadership.

11/6/2005 1:23:58 AM

Quote :

"but politics on the international scale is anarchy"

Not really anarchy, but very losely governed.

11/6/2005 1:31:04 AM

bttt by request

10/29/2008 5:16:54 PM

there is a lot of stupid shit being said in this thread

10/29/2008 5:32:24 PM

^^ I was about to say... I hadn't seen Kris' name in years and was wondering when he started posting again.

(Meant posting to the thread, not the things said in it)

[Edited on October 29, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2008 6:19:16 PM

10/29/2008 6:32:18 PM

i wish they sold us their oil really cheap

10/29/2008 6:34:16 PM

The main problem with anarchism is, as many have already said, is that it doesn't work indefinitely.

Let's imagine that the anarchists of the US got their way and abolished all government tomorrow. Once the dust settled down and the rioting and looting ended, people would band together in small communities. I imagine that the "government" of these bands is rather egalitarian, which certainly would operate fine at this scale because everybody knows everybody. In fact, community rules can easily be enforced at this level because everybody knows everybody. Extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors can be much more easily weighed when those judging you know you pretty well. Social pressure is a much more viable deterrent because, as stated, everybody knows everybody; commit a really bad crime, and the community will either kill you in retaliation or banish you from town. Community decisions are also much easier to make because there are relatively few people to consider. Also, everyone has a chance to voice their opinion.

But now imagine that a few decades pass and population density grows. You may even have communities growing large enough that they begin to run into other communities, but we'll ignore that for now. Now rules become harder to enforce, because everybody no longer knows everybody. Since there's no kinship between all peoples, reconciliations and retributions become harder to manage. At this point, you need an unbiased third party to deal with these issues (eg the police). In addition, decisions that affect the entire society become much more difficult to make. With so many people to consider, it becomes impossible to please everybody. And it becomes increasingly impractical for everybody to put forth their opinion on what should be done because each "vote" counts less and because, at some point, the community divides into pools of conflicting interests. This is typically where the chiefs, leaders, etc step in and assume power. Somebody has to step up and be willing to manage and coordinate the day-to-day operations of the community (such as how to finance and regulate that new policing system).

I'm sure I didn't do a sufficient job of explaining it, but this is basically Jared Diamond's theory of human civilization in a nutshell. Human beings started off as simple nomadic tribes, but then they discovered agriculture and were able to settle down. However, as more people choose to settle in one particular place, the population density grows. As population density increases, social complexity increases. As stated, it's easier to arbitrate a dispute between two individuals who are practically family than it is to arbitrate a dispute between two strangers.

The point I'm getting at is that anarchism demands relatively simple social interactions among people; don't disrupt me or my own and I will extend to you the same courtesy. This is all fine and dandy - if you're talking about a population on the scale of a couple hundred people. But once more and more people live together in the same area and start stepping on each other's toes, the simplistic methods of an anarchistic society can no longer meet everybody's needs. Populations on the order of tens of thousands is when you tend to start seeing the rise of government-like structures. Once you have too many people for anarchism to work, you need other ways to coerce cooperation. If 50,000 people lived together and there was a demand for canals that deliver water, which makes more sense? For 50,000 different canals to be built that infringes upon nobody's property, or to coordinate the efforts of all those people and build a single canal that can be used by everybody?

So the short answer is this; anarchism doesn't work when it's applied to large groups of people. Kind of like communism and libertarianism. Is this to say that the system we have in place is perfect? No, the introduction of centralized rule does bring problems of its own that only time (or perhaps increased population density?) can answer. But the reason anarchism isn't indefinitely sustainable is, in short, that people like to have children.

10/29/2008 6:59:19 PM

words

anarchy

10/29/2008 7:00:18 PM

Government, at the very least, needs to protect the individual rights of its citizens.

10/29/2008 10:25:16 PM

smash the state!!!!!

10/29/2008 10:30:25 PM

Thomas Jefferson for President, yall.

10/29/2008 11:38:05 PM

Oh, I'm going to have fun with this thread later.

In the meantime:

Quote :

"Thomas Jefferson for President, yall."

As I said in a thread a couple days ago, do you mean the same Thomas Jefferson that opposed any expansion of federal power beyond what was explicitly listed in the constitution, then went on to buy Louisiana and conduct an undeclared war against people in the Middle East?

Fuck off with this Jefferson shit. You guys have your ideals, that's fine, but don't act like ANY American president has ever really worked with them.

I suppose you might say, "Well, I meant Jefferson before he was president -- I'm not necessarily talking about presidents." Which means, based on the historical record, that you're talking about liars who never got the chance to prove what a pack of liars they were.

10/30/2008 12:16:17 AM