Added–It’s possible to imagine a future where corporations have become so powerful they have supplanted national governments, but such corporations wouldn’t much resemble corporations as we know them today–instead they’d become a new type of state. Perhaps the trappings of the state would be different–modern day rulers don’t commission paintings of themselves wearing armor and riding horses–but modern democratically elected leaders still run the same sort of entities that the old style aristocracy did. If Bill can order guys with guns to take your stuff whenever he likes, then he as become the de facto government, such as it is. And if he can do this he won’t behave much like present day corporate bosses do, with their concern about earnings and budgets and marketing.
Until human nature has been fundamentally changed and we’ve been transported to a magical land where a post scarcity society is possible I shall leave anarchy where it belongs. In the realm of fantasy, scientifiction, and philosophical theorist.
Odesio
Well, even though I’ve defended the idea of “post-scarcity”, I still don’t see that leading to “anarchy”. And of course some things will continue to be scarce, even in a post-scarcity world. “Post scarcity” doesn’t mean the literal abolition of scarcity, just an economy that is as different from our industrial civilization as the industrial civilization was from the agricultural, or the agricultural from the hunter-gatherer.
Even if providing a comfortable lifestyle for free costs quite a bit, it might become necessary if we imagine that most people in the future will have no marketable skills and no prospects of getting marketable skills. Oh, they’ll be able to do things like pick up trash, but what happens when robotic trash-pickers become so cheap that a trash-picker would have to be paid a few pennies an hour to compete? The other side of the coin is that if trash-picking is so cheap it can be provided for pennies an hour, those sorts of services become cheap to purchase as well. So a few hours a week of labor that only a human can provide could produce enough income to sustain a comfortable lifestyle, albeit one radically different than the lifestyles possible for the really talented.
And if a few hours work every week can provide a comfortable life, well, at that point why not just ask the people who really provide value in the new economy to provide for the unemployable? It will cost almost nothing, after all.
Anyway, I suppose this is enough hijacking about scarcity and post-scarcity, my only defense is that arguing about post-scarcity is interesting, while arguing about anarchism is deathly dull.
Ok lets get detailed answers to this scenario:
Billy Joe Bob Thorton smacks around his wife Selma Thorton causing black eyes and a broken jaw. Several people witness this and Selma is willing to testify:
Questions:
(1) Where and how would the crime he committed be defined?
(2) Who arrests Billy Joe Bob, and where does this person get their power from?
(3) How is Billy Joe Bob’s guilt and punishment determined?
Be as specific as possible please. For example, the answers in our current system would be:
(1) The definition of various crimes will be listed by various jurisdictions in criminal codes. Billy Joe Bob would be subject to Federal laws, State laws, County laws, and possibly city/town laws. These are explicitly defined in statute as passed by legislative bodies, and further clarified by judicial precedent.
(2) The law enforcement officer that has jurisdiction where the crime took place. In general, this is a sheriff, county, city, or town police. They are specifically empowered to arrest criminals through a legislative body elected by the citizens.
(3) Billy Joe Bob will be put on trial in front of the court that has jurisdiction over the area where the crime took place. This jurisdiction is specifically defined by an elected legislative body. In brief, a prosecutor will attempt to convince a jury of Billy Joe Bob’s peers that he committed the crime of battery beyond a reasonable doubt. Billy Joe Bob is presumed innocent, has access to a legal defense, and has, among other rights, protection against self-incrimination. If the jury returns an unanimous guilty verdict Billy Joe Bob will be sentenced by a judge.
OK, suppose an organized gang starts muscling in on this anarchist society. I presume that the society is able to respond to this somehow, right?
In that case, poof, you’ve got your wish. I hereby declare that the entirety of human society is anarchist. Got a problem with those governments that still exist? They’re just organized gangs; deal with them however you wish. Since you can deal with them, after all, right?
“Government is an illusion in the mind of the governors.”
Fair enough. It is interesting to look to what current trends of doing-more-with-less will yield over time (I’d still argue that we’ll fundamentally see capitalism simply with a higher standard of living)… but as long as we’re not on silly claims like that we’re going to develop replicators and Star Trek our way to peace and brotherhood (and a functioning anarchist nati, er, sta, erm, place) then it remains an interesting thought experiment.
Well, they could always, ya know, smash the state.
~d&r~
When?
During the timeframe when anarchy is in the ascendant but traditional ‘archist’ structures have not disappeared yet? (remnants of the idea of a police force)
During the timeframe AFTER traditional ‘archist’ structures have disappeared? (so, what, a generation or two with no organized gangs go by, no one has grown up knowing of gangs and certainly has never been in one, and then whammo some people decide to organize as a coercive gang? and they’d do this why?)
Reread post #31.
A new religious movements sweeps through segments of society dissatisfied with what they see as the moral degradation of man as he no longer must produce what he needs by the sweat of his own brow (thank you post-scarcity world). These religious zealots band together -presumable they can read a history book and figure out that organized groups can hold a lot of power even against a much larger disorganized group- and decide to impose their will on their immediate neighbors.
I understand this can’t happen in the magical world of anarchy land where the fundamental basis of human nature has been radically altered. However, that seems like a possible scenario to me.
Odesio
Within the constitutions/founding document of whatever syndicate/regional collective/union etc. Selma/another witness chooses to appeal to. Like today, I’m reasonably certain that there would be levels of criminality and regional/cultural variations, but I certainly foresee a Anarchia-wide code of justice against things like murder, pollution and assault
A volunteer police officer, duly appointed by consultation by the relevant collective(s). Not much different than today’s county sheriff, if I’m not mistaken.
Again, by collective consultation. Broader in scope than a peer jury, I think, possibly a specific justice subcommittee organised for the purpose. Volunteers, of course.
Here’s where I’m really confused. How is this not an example of a government?
BZZZZT
The bit I bolded is where you fail. Anarchism is not anarchy.
Say it with me: “Anarchism is not anarchy”.
Most models of the Anarchis state in fact postulate an extraordinarily* high *degree of organisation on the part of the populace - into committees, syndicates, unions, whatever. Anarchism in the most common flavours (-syndicalist, -socialst) is a collectivist movement, counting on replacing the machinery of state and professional politicians with direct democracy. It’s the strongest difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism, IMO.
So your supposed religious movement will be coming up against a system of organised groups devoted to the maintenance of the status quo. As soon as their actions turn criminal, they will be appropriately dealt with.
Who said Anarchia doesn’t have any government? Not me.
What it doesn’t have is any rulers. No career politicians. No State.
I don’t see how you’ve removed the state at all. Whatever area this anarchy government controls is the De facto state. They certainly seem to do all the things a state does.
So you’re assuming the anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-communist are all going to be friends on good terms with one another? I suppose it doesn’t matter. The Anarcho-Communist state will certainly have the power to deal with criminals within their own sovereign borders.
How do you figure on not having any career politicians? If you do have a government you’re going to need people to run it. I suppose you could do what the Athenians did and have people draw lots to decide who gets a government position. However, if you’re going to select your government, there’s a chance that those who are smarter and more charismatic may end up being selected on a regular basis to government posts. They Athenians came up with a great solution to this and many of the government posts were selected for by drawing lots for the position. I suppose that might work.
Odesio
When the State is identical with the people, can you really consider it a seperate entity anymore?
I don’t consider anarcho-capitalists anarchists at all, they’re stealth Libertarians with a redwashing cover. I expect Anarchia to settle on one style of anarchism, but whether that be -syndicalist, -socialist, -communist or “anarchism without qualifiers” doesn’t really matter. But I consider capitalism to be incompatible with anarchism, sensu strictu.
Strict term limits, recall powers invested in the collective and a universal culture of service.
Yes - everyone runs the government, and the government is decentralised to the level of local commitees as much as possible, with an escalating chain of representatives to handle broader functions like big roads and the like.
**MrDibble **what you describe will just turn into a government.
Human brains aren’t very good at shunning self interest, and will not sustain universal culture of service. People will always work hardest in their own interest and the interest of their monkeysphere.
Some people like power and will gravitate towards it and end up in charge. Others don’t like power or can’t be bothered and either way will gladly hand power over. The former will work towards entrenchment of their power, which will become a “government”. In a direct democracy, lobby groups controlling votes would quickly arise and transform themselves into a defacto government.
Further it is not possible for a government comprising “everyone” to function: it would be too unwieldy and would be vulnerable to and shortly subjugated by a more sharply focussed and efficient group with a government.
Systems of committees will end up in a heirarchy in order to be able to function, and the upper heirarchy will wield power and become for all intents and purposes a government.
I like to believe we can change. If I can be for everyone, not just my monkeysphere, then it is not impossible for everyone to be similar.
Well, of course we can start with the fact that of course you are not “for everyone”, and for reasons beyond the fact that such a phrase is meaningless noise.
But if you would like to make the substance of your argument that you personally are, in fact, the next step of human evolution into the post-human necessary for the scifi concept of anarchy to work, and that once we’re all as enlightened as you are Heaven will dawn? Well, knock yourself out.
It may well be meaningless noise to you, but if I perform public service for the benefit of many more people than those in my monkeysphere (and I do), then it is, to me, an accurate statement. I volunteer my time to help enrich people’s lives in meaningful ways, from building houses to teaching skills, all without payment. How is that meaningless?
I’m not the only one in this world who embraces a culture of selflessness. I was countering the argument that selfishness is the intrinsic human nature. I do not believe it need be so, and I think all arguments centred on the inevitability of selfishness overriding altruism, for always and all time, are just lazy. The selfishness is socialized more as it is inherent, and I think it’s possible to bring up an entire generation with public service as their nature.
When you say “the people” I assume you’re speaking of the people living within the borders of Anarchia. So the answer is, yes, Anarchia meets the definition of a state as they are sovereign. Anarchia’s neighbors to the north, Communation, and their neighbor’s to the south, Islamo-Fascistland, cannot pass laws that are applicable to Anarchia.
So there’s going to be a system of shared powers between local committees and larger committees to handle bigger issues. Is there going to be a capitol city in Anarchia? How many people do you envision living in Anarchia?
Odesio