# Anarchy: What's the deal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656 "2009-09-26T17:17:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/141 "2009-10-02T13:34:47Z")
I’m not sure anyone is claiming that anarchy is an ideal in itself, but more of a means to an end. I’m open to persuasion that the case is otherwise though. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/142 "2009-10-02T14:09:56Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That’s typical for religious witnessing. If a person does not accept the witnesser’s faith, then the witnesser places blame on the person for not being open to accepting the faith. :rolleyes: You continually refute points that no one has made. You argue against things that no one has said. You have already stated your opinion, and it has no relation at all to the information or perspectives provided to you. Your mind is made up, and it seems that no information will change it. So, thanks for your contribution. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/143 "2009-10-02T14:32:12Z")
Actually it seem more like a political philosophy predicated on the ability to revoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/144 "2009-10-02T15:45:13Z")
Not really, no. If we repealed entropy, anarchists could not come in out of the cold and get warmer by the fire. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/145 "2009-10-02T18:24:20Z")
But as I’ve said in the other related threads, if we have a post-scarcity society, then there’s no need for anarchism anyway. Or, to put in another way, there’s no need to forbid people from having private property, because it won’t matter how many factories and fancy cars and fur coats an industrialist collects, he won’t be monopolizing anything that anyone else needs. There’s no need to declare that the means of production must be unowned when everything can be produced out of a replicator, including more replicators. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/146 "2009-10-02T19:15:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [snip] > > Because people still lust and desire, Buddhists should just give up? > > Because we have war, we can’t plan (or hope) for peace? > > Because there is injustice, we can’t strive for equity? I think it needs one more line in the chorus, something like “the answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind, the answer is blowin’ in the wind”, but not that, 'cause that’s been done. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/147 "2009-10-02T19:21:23Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But as I’ve said in the other related threads, if we have a post-scarcity society, then there’s no need for anarchism anyway. Not “anarchism”, anarchy. > [@](#): > > Or, to put in another way, there’s no need to forbid people from having private property Correct. We aren’t “forbidding” anyone to do anything at all. Ever. No forbidding. Forbidding is forbidden, dammit! What we are saying is that the concept of private property (or at least the concept of _violating_ it via theft) would be foreign. Which is exactly what you’re saying here, in different words: > [@](#): > > , because it won’t matter how many factories and fancy cars and fur coats an industrialist collects, he won’t be monopolizing anything that anyone else needs. There’s no need to declare that the means of production must be unowned when everything can be produced out of a replicator, including more replicators. Yes, exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/148 "2009-10-02T21:22:04Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So because people murder each other, Christians should forsake the Ten Commandments? > > Because people still lust and desire, Buddhists should just give up? > > Because we have war, we can’t plan (or hope) for peace? > > Because there is injustice, we can’t strive for equity? Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/149 "2009-10-02T22:04:46Z")
Please, **Odesio** , explain. If I’m not understanding you, please clarify. It seems to me that there are plenty of times that people act on their own moral philosophies while there are parts of reality that seemingly contradict what will be their own ability to follow them. You said: > [@Odesio](#): > > I can’t plan a philosophy around what might be I have to plan it around the conditions that exist. And yet it seems to me that plenty of people, in fact I would go so far as to say _most_ people have guiding principles which aren’t built around conditions that actually exist. Christians are exhorted _Thou shall not murder_ or _steal_ or _commit adultery_, yet clearly people do these things every day. I don’t know anything about your religious affectations, or your values, but I’m guessing that there are things you personally would not do that others around you would (and do). Isn’t that having a philosophy around what might be, rather than having one built around conditions that actually exist? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/150 "2009-10-03T10:46:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I don’t know anything about your religious affectations, or your values, but I’m guessing that there are things you personally would not do that others around you would (and do). Isn’t that having a philosophy around what might be, rather than having one built around conditions that actually exist? No. The fact that my value system might be different than another person’s value system does not mean that either one of our philosophies is predicated on something that “might be.” I certainly believe _murdering_ another human being is wrong. Just because another human being might chose to murder someone doesn’t mean my philosophy is based on what might be. I’m fully aware that there are people who murder other human beings. Hell, I can even use my philosophy to figure out what to do when one man murders another. Here’s the crux of the matter. Philosophy isn’t just a bunch of pie-in-the-sky ideals. Philosophy is supposed to provide us with a framework for conducting our lives whether it be in our families, in public, or even in politics. As a political philosophy anarchy, at the the post-scarcity variety, fails because it is predicated on conditions that do not exist. You cannot use a philosophy designed for a post-scarcity world to figure out how to run your life in a world with scarcity. Odesio \*For the sake of argument I’m simply defining murder to mean the immoral killing of another human being. ---
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/151 "2009-10-03T15:36:08Z")
Anarchy sounds like something that would work only if everyone agreed on it. It sounds like something that would work only if most people are altruistic. Anarchists have an optimistic view of human nature. I do not. My belief is that people have naturally evolved tendencies towards greed, and those tendencies need to be mitigated by societal structures created by reason. That is the big difference between me and an anarchist. The idea is great but I don’t believe humans are suited to be anarchists, on the whole. If you interview people who have lived in intentional communities, you will find they eventually leave those communities and the communities as originally founded eventually fall apart. The reason given invariably is that not everyone does their fair share, and that leads to resentment and bad feelings. My main question is, how does an anarchist community deal with “The Tragedy of the Commons”? [Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) How do you prevent individuals from taking more than their share of the commons? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/152 "2009-10-03T17:43:51Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > No. The fact that my value system might be different than another person’s value system does not mean that either one of our philosophies is predicated on something that “might be.” I certainly believe _murdering_ another human being is wrong. Just because another human being might chose to murder someone doesn’t mean my philosophy is based on what might be. I’m fully aware that there are people who murder other human beings. Hell, I can even use my philosophy to figure out what to do when one man murders another. > > Here’s the crux of the matter. Philosophy isn’t just a bunch of pie-in-the-sky ideals. Philosophy is supposed to provide us with a framework for conducting our lives whether it be in our families, in public, or even in politics. As a political philosophy anarchy, at the the post-scarcity variety, fails because it is predicated on conditions that do not exist. You cannot use a philosophy designed for a post-scarcity world to figure out how to run your life in a world with scarcity. Thanks for the reply. Anarchy isn’t just a bunch of pie-in-the-sky ideals, either. It does provide a framework for conducting our lives, even in today’s world, where various parts of human nature conflict with the ideals presented. It even allows us to accept the occasional compromise without surrendering. For instance, the rational anarchist understands that governance is currently a necessity in order to protect society (defined as “me and everyone else”) from those individuals who would act only in their own self-interest. We understand that _right now_, we cannot trust everyone to “do the right thing”, and accept that some form of administration is going to have to exist. That doesn’t mean we conduct ourselves like jackasses just because other people do, and it doesn’t mean that we stop striving towards a day when we don’t need that self-imposed patronage, just as you do not simply begin committing murder and mayhem because someone else might (or does). Anarchy doesn’t fail because it needs conditions that do not yet exist, any more than Christianity fails because it posits conditions that do not yet exist, or capitalism, or democracy. Anarchy does offer a framework for personal daily conduct, and can mostly be boiled down to 2 things: Don’t hurt others and take responsibility for your actions. Last, I dispute the final sentence I quoted from you. We can indeed use the principles of anarchy as guides in today’s world, just as people use philosophies designed for a non-violent world in today’s violent world, just as people use free-market ideals in a world that is decidedly not free-market, just as people use democractic methods of governance in a world that isn’t always very democratic, and so on. Because we don’t have the ideal now (and in some cases cannot see it happening in our lifetime) doesn’t mean it can’t provide a framework for living now, and show a better way for those who come after to live. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/153 "2009-10-03T17:49:18Z")
> [@Rusalka](#): > > Anarchy sounds like something that would work only if everyone agreed on it. It sounds like something that would work only if most people are altruistic. Anarchists have an optimistic view of human nature. I do not. My belief is that people have naturally evolved tendencies towards greed, and those tendencies need to be mitigated by societal structures created by reason. That is the big difference between me and an anarchist. The idea is great but I don’t believe humans are suited to be anarchists, on the whole. > > If you interview people who have lived in intentional communities, you will find they eventually leave those communities and the communities as originally founded eventually fall apart. The reason given invariably is that not everyone does their fair share, and that leads to resentment and bad feelings. > > My main question is, how does an anarchist community deal with “The Tragedy of the Commons”? [Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) > How do you prevent individuals from taking more than their share of the commons? Anarchy isn’t pacifism. There is no requirement in anarchy to allow anyone to “take”. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/154 "2009-10-04T01:27:51Z")
The thing about all these recurrent arguments about how anarchy requires a change in human nature is, people born _in this world_ have to _learn_ to toughen up. They have to learn not to trust too easily. They have to learn how not to be a ‘mark’, how to fight back, how to compete and keep on competing whilst getting one’s ass whipped, and a host of other things _ **that do not simply come natural** _. These arguments crop up in two contexts in arguments about anarchy: a) that we’ll never be able to GET TO anarchy because at any given moment the world is still full of people who _have_ learned those lessons, and they are cynical, selfish, hardened, carnivorously competitive people and they will eat your communitarian cooperators for lunch; or b) that anarchy is a silly proposal because people ARE cynical, selfish, hardened, carnivorously competitive people and to have anarchy you’d have to have a different kind of people. In this thread, since we are (for the most part) focusing on what anarchy is and how (and whether) it could exist rather than how to get to anarchy, we’re mostly immersed in arguments of the second type. People don’t need to change; the experiences to which people are _exposed_ need to change, perhaps. People WILL continue to be “selfish” meaning that they will seek to serve themselves (most people will), that if they also seek to serve others they will seek to serve themselves FIRST (most people will), and so forth. But the lessons they learn pertaining to HOW to go about that, including what personality traits to express and in what contexts, as well as the lessons they do NOT learn due to NOT being exposed to as much of the “harden up, it’s everyone against everyone else out there” stuff, — all that is relevant. NONE of that posits a magical sea-change in human nature. It’s just your basic simple sociology. People learn to cope with the environment to which they are exposed. Expose them to a cooperative environment and they will learn how to personally thrive in that. Hint: while coercion DOES exist as A way to get your own way, it’s not the only way, the easiest way, the most effective way, the cheapest way in terms of investment of your resources, the safest way, or even the way that comes most natural to people in interacting with others. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/155 "2009-10-04T01:39:11Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > The thing about all these recurrent arguments about how anarchy requires a change in human nature is, people born _in this world_ have to _learn_ to toughen up. They have to learn not to trust too easily. They have to learn how not to be a ‘mark’, how to fight back, how to compete and keep on competing whilst getting one’s ass whipped, and a host of other things _ **that do not simply come natural** _. > > These arguments crop up in two contexts in arguments about anarchy: > > a) that we’ll never be able to GET TO anarchy because at any given moment the world is still full of people who _have_ learned those lessons, and they are cynical, selfish, hardened, carnivorously competitive people and they will eat your communitarian cooperators for lunch; or > > b) that anarchy is a silly proposal because people ARE cynical, selfish, hardened, carnivorously competitive people and to have anarchy you’d have to have a different kind of people. > In this thread, since we are (for the most part) focusing on what anarchy is and how (and whether) it could exist rather than how to get to anarchy, we’re mostly immersed in arguments of the second type. > > People don’t need to change; the experiences to which people are _exposed_ need to change, perhaps. People WILL continue to be “selfish” meaning that they will seek to serve themselves (most people will), that if they also seek to serve others they will seek to serve themselves FIRST (most people will), and so forth. But the lessons they learn pertaining to HOW to go about that, including what personality traits to express and in what contexts, as well as the lessons they do NOT learn due to NOT being exposed to as much of the “harden up, it’s everyone against everyone else out there” stuff, — all that is relevant. NONE of that posits a magical sea-change in human nature. It’s just your basic simple sociology. People learn to cope with the environment to which they are exposed. Expose them to a cooperative environment and they will learn how to personally thrive in that. > > Hint: while coercion DOES exist as A way to get your own way, it’s not the only way, the easiest way, the most effective way, the cheapest way in terms of investment of your resources, the safest way, or even the way that comes most natural to people in interacting with others. Well said, **AH3**. Coercion may get you some things, but it’s also going to bring you a lot of enemies. Cooperation brings you allies. Cooperation fosters an environment where it’s possible to live longer, and better, than a coercive environment, and offers a sustainability that a coercive environment does not offer (or perpetuate). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/156 "2009-10-04T02:20:44Z")
And anarchy lacks an organized response system for those that don’t cooperate. Apart from simply assuming that it won’t happen enough to muck it up for everyone else. Once they develop such a system, it ceases to be anarchy, and becomes feudalism Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/157 "2009-10-04T03:12:54Z")
In the sense of a _coercive_ response, that is true. However, one’s _reputation_ could suffer were one to be a chronic noncooperator, or a belligerent violent person on a regular basis, etc. And reputation would be a rather important thing in a world where you can’t BUY folks’ participatory efforts but can only ASK. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/158 "2009-10-04T04:00:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And anarchy lacks an organized response system for those that don’t cooperate. > > Apart from simply assuming that it won’t happen enough to muck it up for everyone else. Once they develop such a system, it ceases to be anarchy, and becomes feudalism > > Regards, > Shodan This is incorrect. There is nothing in anarchy that prohibits people from forming collectives to achieve a goal that all find mutually desirable. Once the purpose of the collective has been achieved, the collective would no longer be necessary. Also, there is no reason that anyone has to cooperate with people who won’t cooperate. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/159 "2009-10-04T08:23:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And anarchy lacks an organized response system for those that don’t cooperate. And why would an organised response be better than the emergent community response we suggest would develop in an anarchist system? > [@Rusalka](#): > > My main question is, how does an anarchist community deal with “The Tragedy of the Commons”? [Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) > How do you prevent individuals from taking more than their share of the commons? The irony is that the _actual_ historic commons were _not_ generally victim to this sort of tragedy, and were managed by the affected community pretty much along the lines suggested for an anarchist system (i.e. community-level decision-making bodies rather than a remote hierarchy, and land assignment on the principle of usufruct). In fact, it was the practice of enclosure (i.e. fencing the commons off into private property) that caused all sorts of fuckups and a general concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656/160 "2009-10-04T13:15:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And why would an organised response be better than the emergent community response we suggest would develop in an anarchist system? Because an organized response is more efficient. Specialization is efficient, therefore a police force and army dedicated to enforcing the consensus can respond more quickly and effectively than a lynch mob. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anarchy-whats-the-deal/511656.md?page=9)