Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   How would an anarchist society avoid recreating government? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=642357)

grude 02-17-2012 05:42 AM

How would an anarchist society avoid recreating government?
 
Please no links to verbose gobbly gook about self organizing spontaneous communities and such, I've had enough such links that explain in 20K words absolutely nothing about anarchist society except that its awesome.

So lets say we have an anarchist community, now lets say Bob the sociopath decides he enjoys raiding homes and killing and raping. The community comes together because Bob has to be dealt with, together they work out a system of guards and decide that if Bob is sighted again he needs to be shot on sight.

:smack:Did government just get accidentally recreated? Oh no!

I'm sure that example is blindingly ignorant and stupid, but I can't fathom how exactly a anarchist society could last for long without government being recreated in some form.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783591)
:smack:Did government just get accidentally recreated? Oh no!

No, it didn't. The entire community participating in a democratic decision-making process is not a government.

iamnotbatman 02-17-2012 05:58 AM

It is not blindingly ignorant or stupid, but one of the classic criticisms of anarchism. Of course, there are many anarchist schools of thought, and not all of them are so hard-line as to be inconsistent with limited self-organization of government-like institutions.

What the .... ?!?! 02-17-2012 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783594)
No, it didn't. The entire community participating in a democratic decision-making process is not a government.

Who or what coordinates the participation?

grude 02-17-2012 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783594)
No, it didn't. The entire community participating in a democratic decision-making process is not a government.

I honestly don't see the difference, in my hypothetical example the community has decided to take collective action to defend against, and if need be use force against an aggressor. That sounds very much like a government to me, unless you have a very limited definition of government.

I have seen references to a community and people voluntarily subjecting themselves to private courts and police in anarchist societies, what happens when someone decides not to abide by the private courts or police?

The many varied flavors of anarchism is confusing in itself, often I have no clue what someone is advocating.

Mijin 02-17-2012 06:37 AM

There have been plenty of ungoverned but stable communities through human history. Such communities find ways to deal with the kind of threat described in the OP without slippery sloping their way to anything like what we'd call government.

(I'm not an advocate of anarchy btw)

Xema 02-17-2012 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783591)
... together they work out a system of guards ...

This alone is a rather government-like function. You'll need some scheme whereby guards are qualified, scheduled and their performance monitored (no sleeping on watch). Those not qualified to take their turn will probably be asked/required to help defray the cost of the guards, which starts to look like taxes. Etc.

grude 02-17-2012 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mijin (Post 14783630)
There have been plenty of ungoverned but stable communities through human history. Such communities find ways to deal with the kind of threat described in the OP without slippery sloping their way to anything like what we'd call government.

(I'm not an advocate of anarchy btw)

I'm not trying to be an ass but it really does seem to be a matter of semantics.

Even if there are no legislated laws and law enforcement in the modern sense, if the community collectively agrees and collectively puts forward funds or resources to pay a mercenary to defend the community and drive away bandits and other threats that does seem to be governed.

Blake 02-17-2012 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mijin (Post 14783630)
There have been plenty of ungoverned but stable communities through human history.

Can you name one?

psychonaut 02-17-2012 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783633)
I'm not trying to be an ass but it really does seem to be a matter of semantics.

Of course it is. Why don't you define the term "government" so that we have an objective criterion for testing whether your example meets it? Because right now it's just looking like you're making a circular argument, where you assume the absence of a government, but then arbitrarily interpret whatever it is the community decides to do as government action.

Many philosophers and political theorists have come up with various definitions of "state" and "government". Depending on whose definition you choose, your example community's organization may or may not constitute one (though I strongly suspect that under most definitions, it does not).

Under a Marxian view of government, for example, the people in your example have not constituted a state, since one of its defining features is that it is a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms (where "class" doesn't mean any arbitrary group of people, but rather a group of people who share the same relation to the ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth). The action taken by the people in your example seems to have nothing to do with class antagonism, but rather with the containment of a psychotic individual.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake (Post 14783643)
Can you name one?

Sure. All human societies prior to the development of agriculture.

grude 02-17-2012 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783650)
Of course it is. Why don't you define the term "government" so that we have an objective criterion for testing whether your example meets it? Because right now it's just looking like you're making a circular argument, where you assume the absence of a government, but then arbitrarily interpret whatever it is the community decides to do as government action.

.

I would call a government collective agreements and decisions by a community of reasonable size, and the execution of their decisions. It seems to fit with the dictionary definition which is:

Quote:

gov·ern·ment/ˈgəvər(n)mənt/
Noun:

The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.
I mean in the example I gave they would be exercising violent action against an individual(not without justification but still) which is only acceptable because it has been collectively decided.

My purpose here is not to mock anarchists BTW, I just fell like I'm not getting something. If someone says in a self organizing community there is no need for oppressive laws and government, just don't try to kill random people for the thrill or the community will get together and put you down or chain you up in a basement, sounds like laws and a governing body to me.

Blake 02-17-2012 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783652)
Sure. All human societies prior to the development of agriculture.

No, just.. no.

All the HG societies that I am familiar with had some sort of mandatory initiation ceremony that people had to go through before they could obtain the benefits of living in society. That ceremony involved, in addition to various forms of torture and deprivation, various promises to obey the laws of the gods, as interpreted by the society's elders. That included promises to accept one's rigidly defined role in society, and accept and admister various punishments for transgressing those laws, punishments that routinely involved ritualistic combat and mutilation. Anyone who refused the initiation ceremony was either banished (as in the case of Australian Aborigines) or forced to live forever as a child, as in the case of several New Guinean and North American groups.

That is the standard for HG societies. As far as I know it it the universal standard. And it is as far form anarchism as it is possible to imagine.

Can you actually name one of these HG societies that didn't have rigidly defined rules and laws, handed down by designated elders, enforced by punishment meted out by designated members of society and with a rigid system of privileges only available to those willing to undergo initiation? Because I can't think of any, and I'm not exactly ignorant of this subject.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 08:12 AM

Quote:

Can you actually name one of these HG societies that didn't have rigidly defined rules and laws, handed down by designated elders, enforced by punishment meted out by designated members of society and with a rigid system of privileges only available to those willing to undergo initiation? Because I can't think of any, and I'm not exactly ignorant of this subject.
The stateless character of preagricultural, "primitive communist" societies was first explored in detail by Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, to which I suppose I could refer you as a starting point. Naturally much additional anthropological evidence has been gathered since then, some of which has served to strengthen Engels' theories and some to undermine them. One aspect which, as far as I know, has withstood scrutiny is the equality in property relations enjoyed by members of such societies, which can be observed even in contemporary (albeit vanishingly rare) Stone Age groups; see for example Mark Nathan Cohen's analysis of modern bushmen in The Food Crisis in Prehistory (Yale University Press, 1977). This equality meant an absence of classes, and by implication the absence of a state or government in the sense I had been using the term. Of course, YMMV depending on your definition of "state".

psychonaut 02-17-2012 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783667)
I would call a government collective agreements and decisions by a community of reasonable size, and the execution of their decisions.

In that case, your scenario exemplifies a government. However, in my experience the people calling themselves anarchists don't use such a broad definition of the term.

Blake 02-17-2012 08:27 AM

IOW you are arguing a True Scotsman.

HGs have a home territory, that they defend violently against any other groups.
The only people allowed to live int hat territory and use its resources are people who have undertaken an initiation.
The form of that initiation is handed down by Elders, and it incorporates all sorts of laws that have to be followed, mandatory duties.
The laws also regulate property ownership. Women, for example, can not usually own spears or bows or other hunting implements, men can not own cookware. The law also says that some people can use certain parcels of land within the territory and other people can not. SO, for example, shamans can fish in certain lakes and others can not, only women can gather food in certain valleys and so forth.
The law outlines complex punishments for not following those laws or undertaking one's duties satisfactorily.

But according to you this isn't a government because it is somehow "statelesss". Sure, there is a rigidly defined and violently defended home territory that only some people can live in, but you choose to claim that this is not a state, and since it isn't a state, then there can not be a government. And there is equality in property relations. Sure, only initiated people can even own property, and only certain people can own certain property. But that's somehow declared to be "egalitarian", and since it is egalitarian, there can not be any government.

All this is simply begging the question. The premises that HG society are stateless and egalitarian have no basis in relaity, yet they are the sole basis for your claim that HGs societies, with their complex, multiple layers of laws and punishments overseen by Elders, is not a form of government, and a very rigid and complex one at that.

There is nothing even vaguely anarchic about HG societies. They are rigid, regimented and force conformity to a degree that the modern western mind cannot even imagine.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 08:41 AM

Blake, have you read Cohen's work? The description of hunter-gatherer societies it gives is quite at odds with yours.

Hypno-Toad 02-17-2012 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783591)
So lets say we have an anarchist community, now lets say Bob the sociopath decides he enjoys raiding homes and killing and raping. The community comes together because Bob has to be dealt with, together they work out a system of guards and decide that if Bob is sighted again he needs to be shot on sight.

:smack:Did government just get accidentally recreated? Oh no!

I'm sure that example is blindingly ignorant and stupid, but I can't fathom how exactly a anarchist society could last for long without government being recreated in some form.

In the view of my more libertarian friends, every person is (or should be) responsible for their own defense. if people don't want Bob raiding, raping and pillaging, then they should shoot him when he gets to their door. This is essentially the "polite society" argument that gun advocates use. Problems like Bob would not exist if everyone was armed and willing to shoot him.

I personally hate this view since it assumes that all problems can be handled by an individual and that the individual would only use his guns for personal defense. What if Bob controls a band of forty bandits? How is any individual or household going to fight him? It makes all those Heston-esque tough guy posturings look a bit ridiculous.

It may be hard to tell at what point mutual interest becomes de facto government. But it seems that if a village got a posse together to hunt down and kill Bob, that would not be government per se, but a one-time community action to solve a specific problem.

Dr. Drake 02-17-2012 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783721)
. . . One aspect which, as far as I know, has withstood scrutiny is the equality in property relations enjoyed by members of such societies, which can be observed even in contemporary (albeit vanishingly rare) Stone Age groups; see for example Mark Nathan Cohen's analysis of modern bushmen in The Food Crisis in Prehistory (Yale University Press, 1977). This equality meant an absence of classes, and by implication the absence of a state or government in the sense I had been using the term. Of course, YMMV depending on your definition of "state".

Bolding mine. I don't understand what you mean by government, then, because nothing about the term government implies the existence of classes. Could you clarify? As I understand it, class are matter of scale more than anything. Further, you could argue that the strong gendered division of labour in H-G societies constitutes classes, albeit relatively egalitarian ones in small-scale groups.

Colibri 02-17-2012 10:41 AM

Let's move this over to Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

erislover 02-17-2012 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14783591)
The community comes together because Bob has to be dealt with, together they work out a system of guards and decide that if Bob is sighted again he needs to be shot on sight.

:smack:Did government just get accidentally recreated? Oh no!

I feel like you have set the bar remarkably low for what constitutes "a government." If any organization whatsoever for any purpose constitutes "a government" then anarchy will be trivially impossible.

GreasyJack 02-17-2012 10:52 AM

Am I the only one that read the title and imagined an SCA-esque government recreationist society? You know, after a hard day of work at the collective (entirely non-coercive work, of course), you and a bunch of your friends head down the the park with some home-made three-piece suits and form yourselves one of those quaint old-timey government things like they had back before the End of History. Have a debate, make some laws, use the force of the state to oppress some workers, drink some beers, that sort of thing.

cjepson 02-17-2012 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erislover (Post 14784120)
I feel like you have set the bar remarkably low for what constitutes "a government." If any organization whatsoever for any purpose constitutes "a government" then anarchy will be trivially impossible.

I woulds say that what the OP described is a little more specific than that: An organization developed for the purpose of compelling a member or members of the society to abide by certain mutually agreed upon rules of conduct.

erislover 02-17-2012 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjepson (Post 14784162)
I woulds say that what the OP described is a little more specific than that: An organization developed for the purpose of compelling a member or members of the society to abide by certain mutually agreed upon rules of conduct.

I think that goes farther than the OP's implication, or at least his example. But, sure, there are any number of ways to say that de facto governments are created and if you already accept such situations are inevitable then anarchy is, again, trivially impossible. Case closed.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 14784093)
Bolding mine. I don't understand what you mean by government, then, because nothing about the term government implies the existence of classes. Could you clarify? As I understand it, class are matter of scale more than anything. Further, you could argue that the strong gendered division of labour in H-G societies constitutes classes, albeit relatively egalitarian ones in small-scale groups.

As I mentioned, I am using the word "class" to refer to a group of people who share a common relationship to the ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. Under this definition, men and women in hunter-gatherer societies do not form separate classes, notwithstanding any gender-based division of labour, because the means of production (hunting weapons, containers, grindstones, etc.) are owned in common.

For detailed explanations of how (from the point of view of Marx and his various interpreters) government is predicated on the existence of mutually antagonistic classes, I can refer you to an article on libcom.org and to the definition of "state" in the Marxists Internet Archive glossary.

Dr. Drake 02-17-2012 11:18 AM

From your (psychonaut's) cited glossary, "The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule." If "organized violence" is inherent to your definition of government, you're not really playing with the same deck of cards that I am.

I would certainly agree that Hunter-Gatherer societies are stateless, but for different reasons than in your links—mostly that they do not traditionally have formal relations with other states. I can't see, however, that they lack government, since they have tribal customs and means of ensuring compliance with those customs, both formal (laws) and informal (beliefs). Frankly, the idea that hunter-gatherers are happy, primitive people living without the needless modern complications of government is kind of offensive, and says more about the writers than the subjects.

Great Antibob 02-17-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjepson (Post 14784162)
I woulds say that what the OP described is a little more specific than that: An organization developed for the purpose of compelling a member or members of the society to abide by certain mutually agreed upon rules of conduct.

It's still a ridiculously low bar.

By that standard, let's reduce the group's size to the extreme:

Say I live in some god-forsaken bit of earth and the "community" consists of three people: my buddy Tom, my neighbor Dick, and me (Harry). If Tom and I colluded to force Dick to stop letting his dog pee in my yard, does that constitutes a local government?

Where's the limit?

Mijin 02-17-2012 11:42 AM

I agree with erislover that if we're 1) calling any form of organization "government" and 2) defining anarchy as government-less, then anarchy is basically impossible for humans.

However 1) is absurd, and 2) is at least disputed by some. e.g. from the wiki:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
[Anarchy] implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples, that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority


psychonaut 02-17-2012 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 14784235)
From your (psychonaut's) cited glossary, "The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule." If "organized violence" is inherent to your definition of government, you're not really playing with the same deck of cards that I am.

Could be. As I said, different political theorists use different definitions.
Quote:

Frankly, the idea that hunter-gatherers are happy, primitive people living without the needless modern complications of government is kind of offensive, and says more about the writers than the subjects.
But no one has claimed that they are happy noble savages; the claims being made about them are merely observations about their economic interrelationships. No one in this thread or in the material I've referenced paints primitive communism as an idyllic society to which we should all aspire to return. Indeed, for all its economic and political equality, its members are highly susceptible to periodic outbreaks of disease, famine, and other disasters for which they have no effective social or technological solutions. It's been only relatively recently, thanks largely to capitalism's rapid development of technology and social infrastructure, that we've been able to effectively insulate ourselves against such problems.

Blaster Master 02-17-2012 01:50 PM

I think the issue with the question posed by the OP is that it's basically a True Scotsman argument on either side. Personally, even though I consider my ideal to be borderline anarchic, I think true anarchy is sort of a singularity that, if it can be achieved at all, can only be achieved instantaneously and eventually resorts back to some form of extremely limited government.

I think a more realistic view of anarchy wouldn't be a complete lack of cooperation but rather as a continuum between heavy coercion and complete consent. I would argue that a group can perform government-like functions without really so much being a government provided that any sort of coercion is absent. For isntance, if we have a small society and it is suggested that a road be built, rather than having a tax, which is typically a coercive form of raising public funds (how many people would pay taxes if there were no punishment for failing to do so?), everyone voluntarily donated money and/or land, then its less of a government than a cooperation. So in the case of the OP, while having guards is a government-like function, I think whether it's just a community cooperating or a government depends upon how the decision was reached and implented.

Ultimately, this would really only work in relatively small and like-minded communities because once it gets large enough, there will tend to be enough variation that some amount of coercion will likely come in when agreements can't necessarily be made with everyone willing.

psychonaut 02-17-2012 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake (Post 14784235)
From your (psychonaut's) cited glossary, "The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule." If "organized violence" is inherent to your definition of government, you're not really playing with the same deck of cards that I am.

Oh, I should also mention that defining the state in terms of organized violence is by no means confined to Marxian schools of thought. Max Weber, for example, famously defined the state as an organization which "upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order." Oppenheimer's conquest theory of the state is also expressed in terms of violence and consolidation of power:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Franz Oppenheimer
The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors.


MrDibble 02-17-2012 02:31 PM

The OP starts from the flawed premise that an anarchist society would necessarily be one that has no government. Since that's bullshit, and confuses "State" for "Government", the entire debate is moot.

Anarchist society, as I envision it, has more government (via direct democracy and the syndicalist framework)than the current Western norm. It just doesn't have the hierarchical State.

Chronos 02-17-2012 03:43 PM

Quote:

Anarchist society, as I envision it, has more government...
Then you're using the word "anarchy" to mean something completely different from what most people mean by that word.

erislover 02-17-2012 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 14785250)
Then you're using the word "anarchy" to mean something completely different from what most people mean by that word.

Only because most people's understanding of anarchism amounts to strawmen and hills of beans.

John Mace 02-17-2012 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 14785250)
Then you're using the word "anarchy" to mean something completely different from what most people mean by that word.

As a physicist, that should be something you are familiar with.

Mr. Dibble is sort of our resident expert on anarchism, which comes in many flavors.

erislover: No, their understanding is limited to one flavor. That is neither of those things.

erislover 02-17-2012 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mace (Post 14785352)
erislover: No, their understanding is limited to one flavor.

That's what the colloquialism "hill of beans" represents: an insignificant level.

Grumman 02-17-2012 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 14784971)
Anarchist society, as I envision it, has more government (via direct democracy and the syndicalist framework)than the current Western norm.

I don't know what the "syndicalist framework" refers to, but I agree that anarchism would devolve into "direct democracy", meaning mob rule without the protections of a constitution to curtail its power.

erislover 02-17-2012 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumman (Post 14785532)
I don't know what the "syndicalist framework" refers to, but I agree that anarchism would devolve into "direct democracy", meaning mob rule without the protections of a constitution to curtail its power.

What is the mob going to rule with if there is no permanent power base? Or do you suppose that without the Bill of Rights, we'd be living under a state of continuous rioting and lynching, while decent hardworking folks wrung their hands in worry?

Strassia 02-17-2012 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erislover (Post 14785551)
What is the mob going to rule with if there is no permanent power base? Or do you suppose that without the Bill of Rights, we'd be living under a state of continuous rioting and lynching, while decent hardworking folks wrung their hands in worry?

Continuous? Probably not. But without an effective government you would see outbreaks of mob violence and lynching on a fairly regular basis. What would stop it? If everyone is armed, all it would take is more guns than the group you want to terrorize and you are in business.

BrainGlutton 02-17-2012 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783652)
Sure. All human societies prior to the development of agriculture.

:mad: Big Boss Thog not like anarchist sedition-talk! You pay mammoth-steak and knapped-flint tax like everybody or you get thrown to the hungry cave bears!

Lumpy 02-18-2012 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypno-Toad (Post 14783994)
In the view of my more libertarian friends, every person is (or should be) responsible for their own defense. if people don't want Bob raiding, raping and pillaging, then they should shoot him when he gets to their door. This is essentially the "polite society" argument that gun advocates use. Problems like Bob would not exist if everyone was armed and willing to shoot him.

I personally hate this view since it assumes that all problems can be handled by an individual and that the individual would only use his guns for personal defense. What if Bob controls a band of forty bandits? How is any individual or household going to fight him? It makes all those Heston-esque tough guy posturings look a bit ridiculous.

It may be hard to tell at what point mutual interest becomes de facto government. But it seems that if a village got a posse together to hunt down and kill Bob, that would not be government per se, but a one-time community action to solve a specific problem.

How a libertarian/anarchist/whaddeveryoucallit society could successfully defend itself against organized aggression is a major sticking point. An army of 10,000 can easily enslave a million people if it only has to fight them a thousand at a time. The very fact that states have been ubiquitous since the dawn of agriculture is pretty much a testament to this principle. Libertarianism/anarchy/whatever is clearly not the default outcome of human society.

Proponents of a stateless, non-compulsory society can only postulate that it would have to be a place where "there are no laws but there are rules". In particular, it would have to have as an extremely strong cultural value the idea that organized aggression was an existential threat. For example, some proponents of libertarian statelessness envision a society where dueling between individuals to settle differences would be permissable. But if anyone banded together to gang up on people, they would be everyone's enemy. Of course this would mean that a primordial trait of humanity- tribalism, the idea of Us over everyone else- would have to be actively opposed by whatever cultural values would make a stateless society possible in the first place. Indeed some theorize that only an industrial or post-industrial society, where individuals could exist within a sea of millions or billions of strangers, could BE stateless.

Blake 02-18-2012 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14783770)
Blake, have you read Cohen's work? The description of hunter-gatherer societies it gives is quite at odds with yours.

No I haven't read it.

Perhaps you could just answer the question and name one of these societies.

You've made two posts addressing this question at length without ever actually answering the simple question.

If the name is in one of these works, then tell me what it is so I can confirm it against my books and the journal articles. If it isn't in the book then "Have you read the book" is non responsive.

Why are you being so coy with such a simple question?

erislover 02-18-2012 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strassia (Post 14786163)
What would stop it?

I'm not a huge anti-government type, but I think you have it backwards. "Effective government" is only possible when people have already decided to not riot and kill people wantonly.
Quote:

If everyone is armed, all it would take is more guns than the group you want to terrorize and you are in business.
I'm not saying this has never happened, but if it were necessarily so government would be impossible, because there's always some group with more guns than another group. Yet we aren't in a state of continuous military coups, or police coups, or etc.

grude 02-18-2012 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake (Post 14787007)
You've made two posts addressing this question at length without ever actually answering the simple question.

This is very common among anarchism proponents in general, and dropping meaningless terms (WTF is a syndicalist framework anyway?) and author and book names.

Even libertarianism which has some similarities with some flavors of anarchism is easier to understand.

MrDibble 02-18-2012 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 14785250)
Then you're using the word "anarchy" to mean something completely different from what most people mean by that word.

:rolleyes: I never used the word "anarchy" at all.

MrDibble 02-18-2012 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumman (Post 14785532)
I don't know what the "syndicalist framework" refers to, but I agree that anarchism would devolve into "direct democracy", meaning mob rule without the protections of a constitution to curtail its power.

That's not what "direct democracy" means, nor does anarchism preclude having a constitution nor a Bill of Rights.

MrDibble 02-18-2012 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grude (Post 14787027)
dropping meaningless terms (WTF is a syndicalist framework anyway?)

:rolleyes: Here, let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=syndicalist
I take it you don't need "framework" explained as well?

grude 02-18-2012 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDibble (Post 14787138)
:rolleyes: Here, let me help you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=syndicalist
I take it you don't need "framework" explained as well?

I do have a dictionary thank you, but it appears to refer to a anarchist system almost like trade guilds or labor unions which would not typically be thought of as government per se.

psychonaut 02-18-2012 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blake (Post 14787007)
Why are you being so coy with such a simple question?

I'm not being coy. I gave you a reference to a book which names and describes the tribes. I would look them up for you but my copy is several thousand kilometres away, and for some reason when I originally read it I didn't think to memorize such details in anticipation of your question.

grude 02-18-2012 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychonaut (Post 14787151)
I'm not being coy. I gave you a reference to a book which names and describes the tribes. I would look them up for you but my copy is several thousand kilometres away, and for some reason when I originally read it I didn't think to memorize such details in anticipation of your question.

I don't have a copy of your book to check but reading other anarchist references online it appears what is being referred to is social pressure and ostracism for infractions. So there is a dispute in a HG tribe between two members, they will both feel heavy pressure to resolve it from family and community, they may seek the aid of elders or wise mediators. Should they not resolve the conflict but escalate it or do things which go against tribe norms they will be ostracized socially to the point they will not be able to participate in society. They also will know how difficult or impossible it is to just jump up and go join another tribe, so they have the choice of bowing the community pressure or leaving and living on their own(very dangerous).

Do I have this correct?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.