Anarchy: Your Thoughts

[wvmgmidget]

What would the world be like if government simply did not exist? When it comes time to pay my taxes I somewhat wish there was a anarchy but in reality people would go insane, society and civilization would cease to exist in a normal fashion, and eventually groups of people would take over and create their own government. That's my opinion; what do y'all think share your thoughts

 

[Liquid]

Threads to consider:

Wealth: 85 richest equals 3.5 billion poorest

Tax discrimination

Anarchy cropped up in those threads a lot as a hypothetical point of reference.

 

[PeterJB]

We'd be at the mercy of society's most dangerous members.

So no thanks.

 

[Dotini]

Arnarchy and libertarianism are very closely linked, if you look at the "political compass". They both have the attractive quality of being anti-authoritarian, and freedom-loving. In a more ideal or rustic world somewhere other than Earth, either of these might be philosophies worth trying. Alas, in the here and now, neither has a place in our rapidly expanding, evolving and interdependent global civilization. To manage the challenges we face now, it is necessary to globally deploy authority which criminalizes or otherwise controls certain actions, choices, or even thoughts such as anarchy, people might formerly have taken as free.

 

[Joel]

They're not closely linked at all. Libertarians believe the state should be in the interest of protecting people's rights and anarchists don't believe in a legitimate state whatsoever. State responsibility for protecting rights (police, military, courts) isn't a trivial thing.

 

[Omnis]

We'd be at the mercy of society's most dangerous members.

So no thanks.

No, you wouldn't.

They're not closely linked at all. Libertarians believe the state should be in the interest of protecting people's rights and anarchists don't believe in a legitimate state whatsoever. State responsibility for protecting rights (police, military, courts) isn't a trivial thing.

Yes, they are. Anarchocapitalism is the logical conclusion of all libertarian thought.

What would the world be like if government simply did not exist? When it comes time to pay my taxes I somewhat wish there was a anarchy but in reality people would go insane, society and civilization would cease to exist in a normal fashion, and eventually groups of people would take over and create their own government. That's my opinion; what do y'all think share your thoughts

People would go insane? Umm, ok... Society and civilization would cease to exist in a normal fashion? Of course they would-- that's the point. Our idea of normal is to be stuck in the mud. Eventually groups of people would take over and create their own government? You mean a company? An organization that people could freely associate with? What's wrong with that?

This is not really a good thread for introducing anarchy. Nobody has shown an understanding of how a functioning anarchist society could work. Dismissing it as rape and pillage is missing the point. It'd be like if we lived in communism, and someone brought up the idea of democracy...
"Democracy? No, that's silly. Even in limited form, if 60% of the people make some law that I disagree with, the government is allowed to kill or imprison me for not obeying. That system would never work."

 

[ClydeYellow]

<...>in reality people would go insane, society and civilization would cease to exist in a normal fashion, and eventually groups of people would take over and create their own government.

Why, if you don't mind me asking? It is entirely possible that man would be able to reorganize society around solidarity, rather than the authority of the State (be it "democratic" or authoritarian). You imply without the guiding light of authority we would be living in the Land of Take-what-you-want; you haven't even considered the possibility of a Land of Do-as-you-please existing.

I am not a revolutionary anarchist. I believe an anarchist society is a very long-term end goal that should be reached step-by-step. A good middle step would be a society where direct democracy is in place. But I believe it is perfectly possible to abolish the State and abolish capital and engineers and workers would still build bridges; perhaps when they actually need them instead of when someone decides they do..

 

[Omnis]

You can't "abolish" capital. Capital is an economic factor. Economics is not subject to political will.

 

[wvmgmidget]

Why, if you don't mind me asking? It is entirely possible that man would be able to reorganize society around solidarity, rather than the authority of the State (be it "democratic" or authoritarian). You imply without the guiding light of authority we would be living in the Land of Take-what-you-want; you haven't even considered the possibility of a Land of Do-as-you-please existing.

I am not a revolutionary anarchist. I believe an anarchist society is a very long-term end goal that should be reached step-by-step. A good middle step would be a society where direct democracy is in place. But I believe it is perfectly possible to abolish the State and abolish capital and engineers and workers would still build bridges; perhaps when they actually need them instead of when someone decides they do..

I favor economic freedom (right winged) and I feel government oppresses. But I do not agree with anarchy and yes society needs some form order so it can survive. I just wanted to see what people thought of the topic also people need incentive to perform tasks such as building bridges

 

[Omnis]

Why do you think there would be no order in anarchy?

 

[TVR27]

Then who would represent the country ?

 

[wvmgmidget]

Why do you think there would be no order in anarchy?

Because there are too many immoral people in this world. Humans are not perfect

 

[Omnis]

So you need a state to make sure these immoral people don't act? We have states. Why is there still crime despite our state?

 

[wvmgmidget]

True. The existence of state lessens crime though. In an anarchy people will need to wrong others in order to meets the basic needs of survival, this would be especially true in areas/times with scarce resources (conflict theory)

 

[Keef]

What would the world be like if government simply did not exist? When it comes time to pay my taxes I somewhat wish there was a anarchy but in reality people would go insane, society and civilization would cease to exist in a normal fashion, and eventually groups of people would take over and create their own government. That's my opinion; what do y'all think share your thoughts

That's basically what would happen. Anarchy is an unsustainable condition. Without government (or more specifically to please @Omnis, governance) there is actually less freedom because the minority of people who are less inclined to follow rules are more likely to do bad things if they know they don't get in trouble. Therefore the good people can't really go out and do work and have fun because they always have to be at home defending themselves and their property from potential idiots. It is likely that particular people would gain favor and rise to power in an oligarchic government.

Having some sort of governance implies that an entity would be given power to enforce law, deterring much of the potential crime and providing for a system of justice when crime does happen. What form that governance takes is up for debate. I prefer a constitutional model like the US has where government is in charge of nothing but protecting life, liberty and property. In an anarchocapitalist system there would still be governance through economic systems, just not a formal government as we know it.

Anarchy and anarchocapitalism are two different things. You can't just take "anarchy" and sprinkle some "capitalism" on it and call that a sustainable system. It still requires intelligence and thought. I understand how it would work but I'm not confident the system could be established without the hooligans of society constantly trying to ruin everything for everybody else. Maybe Omnis can shed some light on how it would be established but at 10 in the morning before my first cup of joe the only way I can see it being established is through the authority of morally intelligent people which may be the most fair oligarchy the world has ever seen but an oligarchy nonetheless.

 

[Dotini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy

This link will give you a good portal into the literature and philosophy of anarchy.

I have several works by John Zerzan and Theodor Adorno in my library.

 

[Omnis]

Maybe Omnis can shed some light on how it would be established

For an example, read The Machinery of Freedom.

 

[Dotini]

Anarchy is an unsustainable condition.

Looking at the trends in population, fresh water, desertification, energy, debt, failed states, and in particular personal alienation, it might appear that civilization itself is also unsustainable. This is what gives rise to the Green Anarchy movement.

 

[Keef]

It's not a fluke, it's been tried, it's the truth. The condition of anarchy's a world-class wrecking crew.

 

[Imari]

I always assumed that if all government was removed and it was just a free-for-all, it wouldn't take very long for groups of people to start banding together to protect themselves and their property.

Because you would, right? You'd talk to your neighbours and sort out what was going to happen if someone burgled one of your houses, and maybe you'd set up a little pool of money for improvements to parts of the local neighbourhood that didn't particularly belong to anyone, and generally just get stuff done that would make life easier for everyone.

Hey presto, you've got government again, albeit on a tiny scale. And it grows from there.

Government is a side effect of it being helpful for people to co-operate with each other. Unfortunately, it sometimes grows out of control or is enforced with violence, but in almost any group of people of a reasonable size you'll see this sort of thing turning up.

 

[Danoff]

Anarchy results in the guy with the most guns/thugs becoming a dictator. End of story. This experiment has been tried many many times, always with the same results.

 

[Zenith]

Anarchy results in the guy with the most guns/thugs becoming a dictator. End of story. This experiment has been tried many many times, always with the same results.

Yeah, the result of anarchy is government. Usually a very oppressive one.

 

[Imari]

Yeah, the result of anarchy is government. Usually a very oppressive one.

In the short term, sure. At some point in the history of every society was anarchy, and look at some of the leadership systems that have evolved from that.

 

[Crispy]

Anarchy would only stop progression of our society. We were in a state of anarchy long, long ago. We moved towards civilizations for a reason, and humanity as a whole has progressed much farther because of it.

 

[JMoney]

Anarchy is the Reliant Robin of government philosophies. It tries to be different, and thus better, but it's actually just stupid in the end.

 

[Lizard]

Anarchism≠anarchy according to the theory. Anarchy is a free for all whilst the theory of anarchism is that we can all get along together.

 

[Liquid]

Anarchism≠anarchy according to the theory. Anarchy is a free for all whilst the theory of anarchism is that we can all get along together.

Just like communism and communistic countries. Different in theory and practice but doesn't make either one of them less flawed.

 

[Keef]

I always assumed that if all government was removed and it was just a free-for-all, it wouldn't take very long for groups of people to start banding together to protect themselves and their property.

Because you would, right? You'd talk to your neighbours and sort out what was going to happen if someone burgled one of your houses, and maybe you'd set up a little pool of money for improvements to parts of the local neighbourhood that didn't particularly belong to anyone, and generally just get stuff done that would make life easier for everyone.

Hey presto, you've got government again, albeit on a tiny scale. And it grows from there.

Government is a side effect of it being helpful for people to co-operate with each other. Unfortunately, it sometimes grows out of control or is enforced with violence, but in almost any group of people of a reasonable size you'll see this sort of thing turning up.

Ever seen The Walking Dead? Your scenario basically describes Woodbury and the Governor which is what Danoff described. And out of all the little groups that form, the one that can convince the most to follow them will come out on top.

 

[Omnis]

Interesting, so to speak: