Anarchy!

[HoboFactory]

Well if you're gonna be living with the chickadee that owns the whole world, can't imagine you'd be living in a monk's cabin or something.

[wentwj68]

Anarchy doesn't work for the fact that people arn't given an equal share. To what family you are born would play a huge role. The only way it would work is if everyone was chariatable to everyone else, which why not cut out the nonesense of assuming everyone will and have a government in place to do that with things such as health care/food/ect. If everyone is left to their own, and someone is born with a defect or is disabled, they are clearly at a huge disadvantage and there is nothing inherent in the system to support these types of cases. Communism is the opposite, whereas the system is designed to help everyone, so the two are not the same in that sense as stated a page back or so. Anarachy would exist only if every human was willing to help those around him, which would work in a utopian society, but, there's no reason to simply not have a system that made sure everyone had enough food/water/health.

[Lauren]

the monk's cabin is our summer home.

[cavalier_eternal]

wherever you are is my home.

[Biggie]

Anarchy doesn't work for the fact that people arn't given an equal share. To what family you are born would play a huge role. The only way it would work is if everyone was chariatable to everyone else, which why not cut out the nonesense of assuming everyone will and have a government in place to do that with things such as health care/food/ect. If everyone is left to their own, and someone is born with a defect or is disabled, they are clearly at a huge disadvantage and there is nothing inherent in the system to support these types of cases. Communism is the opposite, whereas the system is designed to help everyone, so the two are not the same in that sense as stated a page back or so. Anarachy would exist only if every human was willing to help those around him, which would work in a utopian society, but, there's no reason to simply not have a system that made sure everyone had enough food/water/health.

In an anarchic system, there is absolute equality of opportunity. It's not really the opposite of Communism, but in such a state there would be equality of condition, where a ruling class basically gives you what you need or takes from you what it wants. It's tyranny at it's greatest.

 

The reason anarchy doesn't work is not because people are given nothing by a government, but it's because people cannot function in large numbers without some coercive body (with limited powers, ideally) that can organise the necessities of a political society (such as a uniform justice system or a single military).

[HoboFactory]

the monk's cabin is our summer home.

But what about the monk??

[cavalier_eternal]

i don't know. he's using our other home.

[HoboFactory]

You know he's probably reading your mail and wearing your bathrobes...

[toolboxnj]

it's like communism, a good idea, but it needs everyone's support, and of course, that would never happen

 

Why is Communism a "good idea"? Even theoretically it is a horrid system. Marx was a philosophical lightweight who manipulated the ideas of the greats that came before him into a nice, compact “theory” of sorts.

 

It rests on the idea that man has no capacity for knowledge, that man’s consciousness is reflected in nature and that the economic base determines of the overall system (called the superstructure). According to Historical Materialism social progress, cultural and political climates are driven by the economic structure that exists in society. Therefore, the materialist believes that man’s consciousness is determined by his relationship to the world; as the economic environment changes the people’s consciousnesses evolves, rather than the political climate, or another “category” affecting the consciousness.

 

What does this lead to? Materialists argue that man exists through nature, but deny the rationality of consciousness. It means that man does not have volition and does not have the capacity to think. Existence and consciousness develop simultaneously through observation and concept formation through Objective epistemology. By denying that man is an agent and that propagating that the world is merely a structural formation that forms a collective consciousness, the individual is therefore destroyed.

 

Anarchy is the ideal social system, however, humans cannot function without some form of central authority. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean chaos. The world is an anarchic system of countries, but it's very orderly. But we need some body that can facilitate collective action, which is just a fact of human nature. Things like defense and justice are too difficult to administer without a coercive power.

 

Anarchy in the International System is much different than an anarchic state or regime. John J. Mearsheimer, the founder of Offensive Realism (which is the theory that you are unknowingly describing), is the first to recognize this fact. Anarchy under O.F. means "the absence of hierarchy", not authority, or that there is no “government of governments” (his words).

 

This is why libertarianism is about as perfect an ideology as we can get. A government should exist, though with very limited power and responsibilities, primarily the protection of the people from violence and fraud. Humans are otherwise left alone by the government, to live their lives.

 

Libertarianism is merely the absence or minimalization of government, a variant of anarchism.

 

Anarchy doesn't work for the fact that people aren’t given an equal share.

 

That's not the reason. Under anarchy, the gang or mob with the most power determines what rights the collective has, which is a misnomer in itself since collectives cannot have rights. One cannot produce if his life is always in danger because laws are subjective and according to the whims of the gang in charge.

 

A society, even if every member of it is flawlessly moral, needs a set of objective laws and an arbiter to settle honest disputes. Anarchy provides neither.

 

In an anarchic system, there is absolute equality of opportunity.

 

There is equal opportunity to die at the hands of a mob or gang. "Equality of opportunity" is also a flawed concept, since who is going to provide this "opportunity". Every man is born different, so should the playing field be lowered to the level of the lowest man at the expense of others? A moral government would give "Freedom of Action" as long as actions do not interfere with the rights of others, not this "Equality of opportunity" which is no more than slavery.

 

The reason anarchy doesn't work is not because people are given nothing by a government, but it's because people cannot function in large numbers without some coercive body (with limited powers, ideally) that can organize the necessities of a political society (such as a uniform justice system or a single military).

 

You are correct there. The only moral functions of the state are:

 

1/ Police - to protect from domestic criminals

2/ Military - to protect from foreign armies

3/ Courts - to settle contractual disputes under an objectively defined law

 

This "coerciveness" is the government’s monopoly on force. Individuals have no right to initiate or retaliate with force; they may only use force in self-defense to protect their life. Only the government may use retaliatory force, or force against those who infract on others' rights. Under a moral system neither the government nor any individual may initiate force on another.

[cavalier_eternal]

nice post.

 

i like how you called libertarianism a form of anarchy.

 

i'm sure some people are soiling themselves over that.

 

haha.

 

want some nf$?

[Bizud]

All of this ignores the existence of relatively successful societies - in and around Barcelona in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, or in Hungary during the 1956 revolution - that were quite anarchist in character, with workers' and neighbourhood councils and collectivisation of industry and agriculture. These societies might well have failed in time, but we'll never know because the powers that be (Bolsheviks in both cases, aided by Fascists and Liberals alike in the case of Catalonia) perceived these social revolutions as such threats that they were attacked and destroyed.

 

Anarchism, to me, represents a commitment to seek out, challenge the legitimacy of, and ultimately dismantle concentrations of power and institutionalized hierarchy. More specifically, I think an anarchist society might well be nothing more than a federation of smaller communities, each self-governing, with neighbourhood councils, democratic control over production and investment, and workers controlling their own workplaces. Those interested might want to read this:

 

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

 

Finally, calling libertarianism a branch of anarchism is ludicrous. Libertarianism is the current (American) name for what was called in the 18th century "liberalism" (and still referred to, outside the United States, as "classical liberalism." Anarchism, in the sense that every (non-libertarian) anarchist uses the word, is a movement that really took on its present form around the same time, and had its most significant impact on the socialist movement (the original program of which was simply "workers controlling their own work"). Incidently, in continental Europe, "libertarianism" refers to anti-statist socialism.

[toolboxnj]

Libertarianism in the political sense is very broad. It's a big-tent ideology that includes classical liberals to the anarchists. So then, where do we look? What links all these groups together: The minimalization of government without really defining what a government's duty is. So far all I can read is "so government doesn't interfere with our lives".

 

That's all well and good. I am a supporter of limited government, but also a defined moral purpose to government. All libertarianism - including anarchy - eventually ends up in the worst kind of communitarianism: gang warfare. Let me explain.

 

Police are a necessary part of government, since man cannot donate all his waking hours to protecting himself. There are criminal elements in any society (since the dawn of civilization) the individual must defend himself from force and also has no agent to rely upon for retalitory force. This man cannot sleep because his throat may be cut in the night - he cannot work, since his house may be broken into - he cannot trade, since another may steal his goods. The men will eventually go crazy or kill himself, both result in death.

 

This man knows he cannot give like this, so he gets the number of the local "boss" in the area, from which he can seek protection. This boss agrees to accept the man into his "company" and assigns tasks to the man in exchange for protection and defense. The trade works for about a year, and the boss becomes rich charging others (like the old and disabled) that cannot exchange anything but gold or money for services.

 

One revolutionary figure sees how much the boss is earning, and gathers a group of violent men together. "Look how much the boss is earning" he would say, "that's OUR wealth, he didn't earn shit!". So the revolutionary severs ties with the boss and forms his own gang. His gang fights the boss' gang for power, killing many combatants and innocents. The warfare ends when everyone is dead.

 

That simple narrative is why we need police, something that does not exist under true anarchy. Individuals have rights to self-defense, but not retalitory force. You cannot lead a mob to arrest a man accused of a crime in order to "seek justice", as what happened in the American South to many Blacks before the modern era.

 

What is the answer? A government that follows an objective law (one defined by facts and reality, not myth, societal norms or personal whims) that has police, a military and a court system. The initiation of force on any party to another (including the government on its citizens) is banned and the government holds the monopoly on retaliatory force. All wealth is private, taxes are voluntary (akin to insurance) and trade is not restricted.

[Bizud]

If the entire population of this message board was dumped onto an island, I wouldn't be afraid to sleep at night for fear of my throat being cut.

[Munk]

The idea that, without an active and interjecting government, your neighbors would slit your throat, is something propagated to the public by said interjecting government.

[toolboxnj]

The idea that, without an active and interjecting government, your neighbors would slit your throat, is something propagated to the public by said interjecting government.

Sliting-throats is a metaphor, not something literal (although it can be).

 

You are naive to believe that there are no criminal elements in society that would use force in order to gain power.

[calgarydave]

Sorry if something like this has been posted already, I'm too tired to read through 3 pages.

But I find it ironic that all those anarchy protestors are so organized, isnt that sorta against the concepts of anarchy?

 

Or maybe someone should write a paper about "self organizing behaviour in anarchist groups"

[Circum]

Sorry if something like this has been posted already, I'm too tired to read through 3 pages.

But I find it ironic that all those anarchy protestors are so organized, isnt that sorta against the concepts of anarchy?

 

Or maybe someone should write a paper about "self organizing behaviour in anarchist groups"

Good point.

 

I know what you mean.

[Munk]

It's a shame you do, Circum. Cuz' he's talking out of his ass. Anarchy has nothing to do with chaos.

 

 

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

 

Read, children.

 

You are naive to believe that there are no criminal elements in society that would use force in order to gain power.

There are other ways to organize against force than a parental government.

[Bizud]

The idea that, without an active and interjecting government, your neighbors would slit your throat, is something propagated to the public by said interjecting government.

Sliting-throats is a metaphor, not something literal (although it can be).

 

You are naive to believe that there are no criminal elements in society that would use force in order to gain power.

There are such elements, and it is the task of the anarchist to ensure that their they and their communities are able to deal with such elements should it become necessary.