Anarchy is a great system for some other species. For us, it’s just the relatively short period experienced before reinstituting a government. Anarchy could only work in small mono-cultured-religious-ethnic enclaves. And only until they’re either wiped out, or, forced to form a true nation to stave off outsiders wanting their stuff. Debating it as an alternative is a waste of energy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anarchy is a great system for some other species. For us, it’s just the relatively short period experienced before reinstituting a government. Anarchy could only work in small mono-cultured-religious-ethnic enclaves. And only until they’re either wiped out, or, forced to form a true nation to stave off outsiders wanting their stuff. Debating it as an alternative is a waste of energy. [/quote]
x1billionkajillion
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anarchy is a great system for some other species. For us, it’s just the relatively short period experienced before reinstituting a government. Anarchy could only work in small mono-cultured-religious-ethnic enclaves. And only until they’re either wiped out, or, forced to form a true nation to stave off outsiders wanting their stuff. Debating it as an alternative is a waste of energy. [/quote]
LOl - Sloth, you and I are typically in agreement, but I would have to say that understanding the concept is an important reason to discuss it. That said, however, let’s say EMP or nuclear kicks us back into the stone age, there will be the same progression of cooperation/control that we have witnessed in recorded history to this date - periods of individualism, tribalism, warrior kings, loose affiliations, city-states, regional powers, empires, nation-states and finally unified global tyranny - as the threat grows, so grows the defense mechanism. there may be overlap, retreating, merging of these and other forms. But a valid case can be made that this form of non-governance cane exist.
In addition, even a powerful state can be forged on the basic premise of personal freedom to a very great extent.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
My personal view is that anarchy is not the absence of any structure or alliances, but the absence of mega-government. - such as “a man is King of his castle” even a state of anarchy will have some structure base don family, community or even tribe, but the basic underlying tenet is each man is his own master.[/quote]
Libertarianism is a far better term than anarchism. As you stated, “anarchism” conjures up all sorts of misconceptions.[/quote]
Libertarianism and anarchism are distinct; what’s the point of conflating them?
Anarchy works precisely because it is the natural state of the universe.
All organisms organize. The extent to which organisms will organize in a voluntary manner – in the sense that it is not derived from “natural forces” – only varies by degree among species.
Human beings being capable of reason can learn to live in peace among each other in a voluntary society – and to a large extent that has already happened thanks to trade and the prosperity it brings all participants. On the other hand nation states only bring death and destruction and soul shattering poverty to the people they must naturally enslave so that they can “organize them.”
All that is required for humanity to prosper is for mankind to become enlightened enough to realize that he has no control over the universe and natural law. In order to do that he must understand natural law. He must also understand that his actions have to coincide with natural law and they can not work against it – no matter how hard he wants to over come it.
The natural order can and must be brought back into existence among humans or else humanity will kill itself off.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Libertarianism and anarchism are distinct; what’s the point of conflating them? [/quote]
They are not distinct if one really understands what libertarianism is.
Libertarianism is an ethical framework that makes anarchy possible.
Nonaggression is a necessary component to restore that natural order.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Anarchy works precisely because it is the natural state of the universe.[/quote]
Must be an extremely common and endurable state of man.
But… it isn’t.
And the reason it isn’t is because humans also spontaneously order themselves into power structures to dominate other humans, their environment, etc.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Libertarianism and anarchism are distinct; what’s the point of conflating them? [/quote]
They are not distinct if one really understands what libertarianism is.
Libertarianism is an ethical framework that makes anarchy possible.
Nonaggression is a necessary component to restore that natural order.[/quote]
Libertarianism is a philosophy seeking maximum negative freedom - which recognizes that an extremely limited State is neccessary towards that end.
I agree with your third point - unfortunately, reality will prevent such a component emerging.
Jefferson and Madison and all the founders were naive. A self limiting government is an impossibility. Every year that the US has existed as a nation state the size of government has increased exponentially year after year. It has never shrunk and always has grown.
Yet, how can we expect that government will make any attempt to limit itself when in fact they are imbued with the same inherent corruption that they are supposed to protect us from? The power structure will always grow yet it only brings chaos and not any of the liberty the founders intended.
Government is Chaos. Anarchy is order. Ans thus it will ever be.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Libertarianism is a philosophy seeking maximum negative freedom - which recognizes that an extremely limited State is neccessary towards that end.
I agree with your third point - unfortunately, reality will prevent such a component emerging.
[/quote]
Ideas are a powerful force. They can work in our favor or against it.
Saying something won’t work is self defeating and precisely why people are given to failure.
It’s not a matter of anarchy working or not working. It works if people act in accordance with natural law.
We don’t expect that people in all times and places will act morally. But we need a just way of dealing with them and most importantly we need not have an institution that enables their bad behavior.
Again, anarchy is COMPLETELY different from libertarianism. We had this discussion a short while back. Read some Emma Goldman and you will see that for true anarchists no form of capitalism is acceptable.
Anarchy is about being relieved of all things that constrain us, gov’t; property; etc.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
My personal view is that anarchy is not the absence of any structure or alliances, but the absence of mega-government. - such as “a man is King of his castle” even a state of anarchy will have some structure base don family, community or even tribe, but the basic underlying tenet is each man is his own master.[/quote]
Libertarianism is a far better term than anarchism. As you stated, “anarchism” conjures up all sorts of misconceptions.[/quote]
Libertarianism and anarchism are distinct; what’s the point of conflating them? [/quote]
No, they’re the same thing.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Again, anarchy is COMPLETELY different from libertarianism. We had this discussion a short while back. Read some Emma Goldman and you will see that for true anarchists no form of capitalism is acceptable.
Anarchy is about being relieved of all things that constrain us, gov’t; property; etc. [/quote]
Private property doesn’t constrain humans. If you take “property rights” to its most basic form, it actually allows for individuals to have the most freedom possible.
If we understand the rights of our person (our ideas, body, thoughts, labor, etc), logically, certain other rights will follow.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Again, anarchy is COMPLETELY different from libertarianism. We had this discussion a short while back. Read some Emma Goldman and you will see that for true anarchists no form of capitalism is acceptable.
Anarchy is about being relieved of all things that constrain us, gov’t; property; etc. [/quote]
Couldn’t it be summed up like this: Left Anarchism = State of total non-hierarchy? Right Anarchism = State of total non-aggression? Left Anarchists seem not to have a problem with coercion, so long as it fits the desires of a majority, whereas Right Anarchists want individual autonomy and absence of any sort of democracy, outside of the market. Also, I know that Chomsky identifies himself as a “Libertarian Socialist”, and also an anarchist, so I don’t think they’re that different. I think it’s just a difference of organization.
Of course, in a society that truly had no coercive hierarchy (the state), theoretically everything would be up to the people to choose, so one could either go left or right.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Again, anarchy is COMPLETELY different from libertarianism. We had this discussion a short while back. Read some Emma Goldman and you will see that for true anarchists no form of capitalism is acceptable.
Anarchy is about being relieved of all things that constrain us, gov’t; property; etc. [/quote]
Private property doesn’t constrain humans. If you take “property rights” to its most basic form, it actually allows for individuals to have the most freedom possible.
If we understand the rights of our person (our ideas, body, thoughts, labor, etc), logically, certain other rights will follow.
[/quote]
I assume you see private property as a “natural right.” I agree. The problem is that other people/groups may not honor that right. You can choose to ignore them at your peril; or you can get together with a few other people to collectively protect your property. Therein is the fledgling State.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Jefferson and Madison and all the founders were naive. A self limiting government is an impossibility. Every year that the US has existed as a nation state the size of government has increased exponentially year after year. It has never shrunk and always has grown.
Yet, how can we expect that government will make any attempt to limit itself when in fact they are imbued with the same inherent corruption that they are supposed to protect us from? The power structure will always grow yet it only brings chaos and not any of the liberty the founders intended.
Government is Chaos. Anarchy is order. Ans thus it will ever be.[/quote]
I agree that there’s a perennial tendency to accumulate power - but, seriously, Lifty, doesn’t that actually prove my point? Think about it.
No doubt it’s true that liberty requires constant vigilance; and, our social order is always a work in progress.
What’s naive is to think that natural rights will persist - as a practical matter - outside the context of State, however limited and circumscribed by the Rule of Law.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I assume you see private property as a “natural right.” I agree. The problem is that other people/groups may not honor that right. You can choose to ignore them at your peril; or you can get together with a few other people to collectively protect your property. Therein is the fledgling State.
[/quote]
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here and I don’t mean to speak for Dustin, but I know that some anarchists might respond by saying that your right to self-defense is your responsibility only and to force others (through taxation) to defend you is an infringement of their natural rights. In the place of a state, companies would supposedly emerge that you would hire for defense in the case someone commits a crime against you.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I assume you see private property as a “natural right.” I agree. The problem is that other people/groups may not honor that right. You can choose to ignore them at your peril; or you can get together with a few other people to collectively protect your property. Therein is the fledgling State.
[/quote]
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here and I don’t mean to speak for Dustin, but I know that some anarchists might respond by saying that your right to self-defense is your responsibility only and to force others (through taxation) to defend you is an infringement of their natural rights. In the place of a state, companies would supposedly emerge that you would hire for defense in the case someone commits a crime against you. [/quote]
Right - and so I’m going to make sure MY COMPANY is bigger than yours. And I and my neighbors are willing to pay a little for this collective protection because we’re trying to grow things and feed our family.
In fact, because I’m a little power hungry, fuck that - I’m going to be the head of this company and it’s going to be huge and we’re going to raid everyone else’s graineries. And while we’re at it, we’re going to enslave them and capture their women for my pleasure.
Since my enemies know this - they are also accumulating weapons and creating a “company” to keep our company at bay.
Etc.
Inexorably, we are sliding towards a State.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Jefferson and Madison and all the founders were naive. A self limiting government is an impossibility. Every year that the US has existed as a nation state the size of government has increased exponentially year after year. It has never shrunk and always has grown.
Yet, how can we expect that government will make any attempt to limit itself when in fact they are imbued with the same inherent corruption that they are supposed to protect us from? The power structure will always grow yet it only brings chaos and not any of the liberty the founders intended.
Government is Chaos. Anarchy is order. Ans thus it will ever be.[/quote]
I agree that there’s a perennial tendency to accumulate power - but, seriously, Lifty, doesn’t that actually prove my point? Think about it.
No doubt it’s true that liberty requires constant vigilance; and, our social order is always a work in progress.
What’s naive is to think that natural rights will persist - as a practical matter - outside the context of State, however limited and circumscribed by the Rule of Law. [/quote]
Natural rights do not matter. Every life has value in that every person can value his own life in any manner he sees fit. He does this by his actions alone.
A person’s life is necessarily devalued when it is constrained from living to the best of its nature given abilities. We necessarily must always harm society by devaluing property and so in order to not harm society we need to understand what that entails.
Furthermore, I do not require that people recognize my “right” to my life or property (which is really the same thing). I only require that none stop me from living my life. As such I do not care what that notion is called.
Besides, there has always been private law.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I assume you see private property as a “natural right.” I agree. The problem is that other people/groups may not honor that right. You can choose to ignore them at your peril; or you can get together with a few other people to collectively protect your property. Therein is the fledgling State.
[/quote]
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here and I don’t mean to speak for Dustin, but I know that some anarchists might respond by saying that your right to self-defense is your responsibility only and to force others (through taxation) to defend you is an infringement of their natural rights. In the place of a state, companies would supposedly emerge that you would hire for defense in the case someone commits a crime against you. [/quote]
Right - and so I’m going to make sure MY COMPANY is bigger than yours. And I and my neighbors are willing to pay a little for this collective protection because we’re trying to grow things and feed our family.
In fact, because I’m a little power hungry, fuck that - I’m going to be the head of this company and it’s going to be huge and we’re going to raid everyone else’s graineries. And while we’re at it, we’re going to enslave them and capture their women for my pleasure.
Since my enemies know this - they are also accumulating weapons and creating a “company” to keep our company at bay.
Etc.
Inexorably, we are sliding towards a State.
[/quote]
But aren’t you forgetting a very important concept here? That being law. In an anarchist society, couldn’t law itself be privatized and the people choose which companies laws they want to follow? They would not be forced, of course, to follow the companies’ laws through taxation, but if one infringed on another’s right, the laws of that company would permit the private defense company to engage the individual for compensation. Those companies would then be reinforced by private defense companies, who would find it profitable as well to submit to the laws of the company that makes laws most profitably! I mean, it’s not really profitable for any company to amass an army (they would also have to essentially get the approval of shareholders, others within the company,etc.).
Also, wouldn’t the rates of a company who is amassing an army skyrocket (in order to fund the impending army) to a point where the consumers would no longer be willing to pay them for defense and would turn to another company instead, thereby naturally destroying the “emerging state”?
Again, I’m just going by what I’ve heard from some anarchists. I find the idea of anarchy at the very least intriguing.