Certainly.
Post-scarcity has come up in other discussions of anarchy here at the SDMB. I still consider it science fiction for now.
Where? Practically all inhabitable regions of the world are already claimed by non-anarchists.
The other problem with establishing such systems is the violent reaction of more developed nations to their creation. Spain is a perfect example. The US was more than happy to support fascism in order to stomp the life out of anarchism. In south America efforts toward more left leaning governments have met similar fates. It’s not really possible to just try it without some special historical circumstances.
Anarchy is not “leftist” or “rightist” as usually conceptualized. Just as there are versions of each that resemble each other on the authoritarian pole (think Stalin and Mussolini), there are radical lefties and extreme conservatives who, from different angles of approach, have concluded that the ideal would be anarchy.
It’s interesting in some ways to note that the “open-source software” ecology that’s been used as an example in this thread a few times of a functional anarchy is also operating in what is essentially a post-scarcity environment.
I disagree. Anarchism is the Far Left. I’ve never read about any Right Anarchists who weren’t just Libertarians in disguise.
It’s not just science fiction - it’s also seriously considered by academics, and has been for years.
But if it is science fiction, let me leave you with a thought from a master of that genre:
“Money is a sign of poverty.”
They’re talking about software which is a vary narrow environment. Get back to me about post scarcity when we can talk about it in terms of food, commodities and energy and we’ll have more to talk about.
Thats fine, left/right political spectrum is an oversimplification in any case. I was mostly saying that when governments unpopular with world powers have tried to emerge they have been violently attacked and eradicated and there is no reason to think this won’t continue to happen on into the future. Especially once drones allow nations to wage wars while telling the homefront they have zero casualties.
The “same way” isn’t accurate because law and custom will be radically different in an anarchy than the law and custom we currently use. In an anarchy, if the majority decide to pass laws, rules or whatever you want to call it that bars members of certain races from marriage, employment or whatever, what recourse do those people have in an anarchy? Is there something like a Supreme Court that might rule whether such a thing is okay under the law? And, no, you don’t get to wave a hand and say that such a thing could not happen in an anarchy.
Disregarding whether or not a civilization could or could not function, eliminating private property is a radical departure. Laws, customs and the economy would all have to change to reflect the lack of private property. Thing would be radically different.
No reason to think an anarchist system wouldn’t have courts. People have an interest in impartiality and fairness and so courts are a justified formation. Lifetime appointments like a supreme court probably not, but having a supreme court that makes decision like citizens united and the other corporate law decisions doesn’t endorse our current court structure very highly. Also theres the Clarence Thomas BS recently where he financially benefited from a case he was on and did not recuse himself as would be required of any other level of judge, but in the law hierarchy they are “supreme”, and so unaccountable.
I’m pretty sure people would own their clothes, artwork they’ve made the tools they use, things like that. Not owning real estate is no bigger a departure than people renting instead of owning. It’s a lot more efficient since you can move around a lot more easily if you aren’t tied to a mortgage. Makes labor mobility much better allowing skill to go where skill is needed. It’s only radical if you think of it from the perspective of someone who owns a lot of things now, most people have negative or zero total assets and live paycheck to paycheck. It’s true that things like inheritance would no longer make you successful. You would be respected and awarded things based on the merits of your contributions in your lifetime.
You also would not be able to leverage wealth to accumulate more wealth (gamble with a personal advantage). Can’t say I’d miss this feature of humanity.
Obviously. The point being, should we get to a point where scarcity is able to be less relevant (arguably some areas are already getting there with regard to food supplies, judging by the dumpsters behind supermarkets (the occasionally padlocked ones with slightly out-of-date food in 'em)), anarchy is eminently workable, despite anyone’s nasty assumptions about human nature.
Anarchism is not a philosophy. It’s a social behavior with its main purpose to show disapproval of modern social norms and systems, mainly since the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
Some pseudo or marginal intellectuals have tried to elevate this term to a legitimate political or social philosophy, but they fail by definition because Anarchism does not accept any social rules whatsoever.
Anarchism is not only absence of government. It’s absence of any limits of any kind to an individual’s behavior.
There’s too much confusion in associating this term with reaction to political oppression, real or perceived, but the term stands for “no rules”, or literally “no authority” that would set, implement and carry out social rules.
Okay, you didn’t really address my concerns about protecting the rights of minorities in anarchy. How would courts protect the rights of unpopular minorities in our anarchy? Would they be able to overrule popular opinion?
No human society will exist that does not place limits on human behavior. By that definition, anarchy is certainly a fantasy.
It’s certainly anti-social.
In 90% of cases, this term is confused with opposition to social oppression, like Libertarianism is always confused with heavy-duty conservatism, when it’s not.
Nature does not allow for anarchy to exist.
Villanova Junction does not know what they’re talking about. Please disregard their comments. Anarchy means no rulers not no order or no rules.
This statement shows how what I said is right.
How so?
Sure, why not? Not an entrenched system like the US Supreme Court, no, but certainly there would be a Constitutional Court-type setup
If it did, it wouldn’t be an anarchist system, would it? Because of the coercive element. So yes, I do get to wave my hand…
No, it isn’t. Elimination of private ownership of property (voluntarily) has a long history in our own civilization and others.
NO question they would. But not unimaginably so.
Bullshit, there’ve been rules and philosophies about it since the concept was born.
Again - Bullshit. You’re confusing anarchy with Anarchism.
Etymology prescriptivists get only one reactiuon from this Anarchist: :rolleyes: