View Single Post
Old 02-24-2012, 06:10 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I would imagine the community points a finger at the board where the rules of the community are posted, then another at the road leading out of Christiania. Believe it or not, a handgun does not grant one the power to hold 600+ people at gunpoint at once, much less force them to let one live among them.
But the guy doesn't even need to point the gun. He simply ignores the pointing fingers. Sure, he could get tactical, and shoot the people who are pointing the most emphatically, but, if there are no means of compelling obedience, he can just shrug and continue polishing his gun.

Several people here have said that laws, and the means of enforcing them, are not the same as "a government." But no one seems to have drawn a completely clear distinction.

You, at least (and thank you!) are the first who has actually described a means of enforcement: the pointing of fingers. I hope you will forgive me for considering it an insufficient means, in the face of intransigence.

The guy says, "Nope. Ain't leaving." What next?

I guess a boycott might work; if no one engages with him in any way, he'll have trouble making ends meet. He'd have to start growing his own food, etc. Passive, non-violent social ostracism has had powerful effects in the past.

But, once more, it requires total unanimity. If even one guy says, "Whoa! I can sell him food! He might be willing to pay a bit more for it!" then the boycott fails. And, once again, how is the boycott enforced without some means?

Mostly however the problem simply does not present itself. Existing citizens agree with the rules they created implicitly. . . .
As has been granted all along, if you have absolute unanimity, then, yes, certainly, this will work. Is this, perhaps, the mechanism? "In true anarchic societies, everyone will implicitly agree to the rules?" It seems contrary to the experience most of us have had of human nature...

That being said, as Untoward_Parable mentioned, anarchism isn't antithetical with government. It *is* a form of government. Anarchism is not chaos, and isn't antithetical to rules and laws either.
I suppose so, but I don't see it. I'd sure like to know more about the actual day-to-day functioning, and how the rules are enforced. Heck, I'd like to know how the rules are created in the first place. Is there a democratic assembly? Or representation? What if there is a lone dissenter? What if there are large numbers of dissenters? How are property disputes settled? How are violent crimes dealt with?

If it is a government, then why does it have its own name. i.e., what makes it specifically not a democracy, or a representative democracy, or a republic, etc.?

And....what are the mechanisms that keep it stable, so that a small group of people do not alter the laws, contradict the intent of the founders, and usurp power? (The question in the OP.)