To build a road more sophisticated than a dirt cow path you need dozens (if not hundreds) of people with a variety of diferent skills: city planners, civil engineers, surveyers, pavers, ditch diggers, backhoe operators, etc. Someone has to decide that a road is needed, where it will go, how wide it should be, what material is used, and so on. It is more effecient and effective to have a small, specialized group make those decisions instead of hoping the entire township spontaneously decides to construct a 2 lane highway.
A specialized group that is charged with planing public works sounds an awful lot like government to me.
Only if they hire guns to make sure nothing goes wrong. Really, msmith, I think you are trying to insist that anarchy means disorder as opposed to lack of forced order. Your call, I suppose.
One could argue that you can get by every day without police and government interaction precisely because there are police forces and a government who prevent you from being in a situation where you would need them. For instance, you’re not mugged at each corner of the street because potential muggers know there are laws, policemen, courts, etc…
You could argue that in an anarchist society you could find other ways to protect yourself, but it’s not my point. My point is that you can’t conclude from your everyday life experience in an organized society that you don’t really need an organized society.
Your argument is purely semantic, given the original objection. A large group of organized people providing a service in exchange for a profit is very corporation-like, with or without a law to define it as such.
And such a group will be large (because you can’t build a highway with a handful of people)and organized because it’s more efficient. And if this large and organized group with profit as main goal you don’t want to call a corporation has the opportunity to take advantage of you, it will. In the same way that a large and organized group with profit as main goal legally called a corporation would, except that it won’t be limited by law.
If you prefer, I can even write that the people constituting the group (instead of the group itself) will take advantage of you. But it won’t make a lot of difference.
I dunno, it sounds as though you’re trying to insist that by definition, a government uses force. That’s not a definition of the term I’m familiar with. If it derives its authority from some other means than force, it’s still a government.
Ok, something is clearly not being communicated effectively here. clair
One could argue that very strongly. I am not arguing that that is not the case. I am arguing that it is not necessary for there to be a government with a police force.
Semantic? What the fuck? A corporation is a legal entity. In absense of a government it is a group of people doing something. In a legal situation the people that make up the corporation are almost entirely immune from accepting the responsibility for the corporations actions. In absence of such laws, the people are responsible.
I think the distinction is a bit more than simple semantics.
Oh, I’m sorry, were we discussing applied anarchy? Did anyone here mention that we should impliment anarchy right now? I missed that part. I thought it was clear that peaceful anarchists are well aware that it cannot, at this time, be successfully implimented. I seem to remember several posts making that clear.
It makes a hell of a lot of difference! The people who make up corporations are immune from receiving the legal brunt or economic retribution of their “bad” actions. In absense of laws which protect the people who are doing wrong I think you may find a few people might back down a bit. But even that may not be clear. That is fine; I don’t expect it to be. Given the organization of our current society and whatever mentality it may have, I do not find that anarchy is possible or plausible. wevets
I’m not talking about where it derives its authority from; I’m talking about how it impliments that authority. clair again
sigh
Anarchists that are looking towad a peaceful society are looking toward a day when human interaction is guided primarily by what many call a social contract instead of fear of retribution from a governmental body. As such, a permanent government, a permanent police force, and a permanent military would not exist. There is no indication that such a feat is possible in the world that we see around us. So nothing makes me think that the people of today wouldn’t “hire guns” to impose their will on others; I obviously know that people will hire guns to enforce their opinion. This is why we have a government.
Erislover,
Well…on the overall, it seems to me you’re saying that such a society couldn’t exist at this time but could be possible in some future, assuming that people would have acquired a different view.
My position would be that it will never be possible, since much of people’s behavior is merely part of human nature. My understanding is that you believe it’s mostly related to acquired/learned conducts. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh, very much so. The majority of criminals have the mental ability to know what they are doing (are not considered incompetent). They choose a life of crime for any number of reasons. Economic hardship or stagnation, a feeling of being slighted by society, a feeling of being slighted by specific portions of society, a response to others who have already taken the life of crime (joining a gang because of gangs sorta thing). Rapid growth, improper justice processes, whatever.
I don’t suppose that it will ever be possible to remove crime (or, in the absence of a government, coercive action against a non-consenting party). I do suppose that at some point in the future most people will have reached a point where crime is no longer an effective mode of life, due largely to a new personal outlook (not because of a ubiquitous peacekeeping force). I cannot say what will bring this about, but I do feel that most people are law abiding citizens not because of a fear of legal repercussion but because they are just that sort of person. As such, it isn’t really the government which keeps people in line, but they do so themselves.
I think the general path to such an existence will follow a path similar to this:
Current society (mixed partisan politics) --> strongly liberal society (primarily democrat) --> reactionary conservative --> libertarian --> government in absence.
It will follow a path, IMO, leading to hugely excessive regulation and control in the liberal society until it reaches a point where opinions shift from progressive socialistic programs to keeping what they have (since, ater an effective liberal society we can assume that most everyone has actually been provided for). After everyone gets their cake and keeps it, I think general opinion will sway towards dismantling a bloated government and head toward the libertarian ideal of people doing the work, and government just sitting back and worrying about coercive crime and national defense. It would stay here until such a time that all societies have done something similar, or until there is a one-world libertarian type government. After this point, I think people will start to interact without a strong need of police protection, and eventually will interact without the need of relying on the legal system to settle disputes. At that point, we have a society where the social contract is all that holds power.
Pipe dream, I know. Ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime.
Ok. Perhaps I poorly expressed myself, but it was more or less what I meant (our current usual behavior isn’t “hardwired”)
I must say that your theory about the possible/likely evolution of society seems to me to be very similar to the belief socialists had in the apparition of a communist (not in the casual use of this term) society where the state and the governmental institution would progressively dwindle and dissapear, after a transitory socialist (still not in the casual use(s) of the term) society.
In your case you only change the basic premises (everyone has been provided for in a liberal society instead of a socialist one), but the goals, hopes and faith are the same.
Since you seem to be aknowledgeable about political philosophy, I suppose you’re aware of this similarity. How do you analyze it?
(For my part, I believe that both require faith in the possible amelioration [what is involved in this amelioration can differ] of the human nature, and I don’t think it’s possible…or more exactly I don’t believe it’s possible to such an extent. I wrote this just FYI, it isn’t my point in this post)
It is very similar to a communist utopia, except that I still think most people will provide for themselves, and altruism will not ever make an appearance after the liberal society dissolves. I think self-interest is a much stronger motivator than anything else; if anything, that is what we are “hard wired” for. The insanely regulated liberal society will be needed to get it into people’s skulls that self-interest includes caring about the people you live with.
I don’t think the goals are quite the same, and I seem to remember that Communists are much more–err-- active in trying to make such a society, where I feel that excessive pressure can only result in a governmental force backlash (you can’t force those that use force, and the government definitely uses force; they’ve got the upper hand on that one). I would think the average pacifist anarchist prefers inaction-- the system will “destroy” itself. Some mean the destroy literally, others (like myself) think it does have a sort of inevitable progression. In that way I do have something in common with some Marxists, but I make no claims about everyone being provided for, unless you mean they provide for themselves. Mosts Communists seem to think that the end result is everyone providing for everyone else; at least, that is the impression I get. I still think that there will be a very active market (very!) but with a base of people who are both educated enough to functionally interact in it and nice enough to not take advantage of people with it (and with the absence of laws, they have a hard time hiding behind anything). Call me a right anarchist, I guess. I think most Communists would be left anarchists (if such political terms can accurately be applied to anarchists at all).
Well, again, it is a matter of what you are willing to accept as evidence. When I drive down the street, I don’t think people are avoiding ramming my car because they will get into legal trouble over it. Interactions between many friends and family members show that absolute force isn’t required for compromise, and certainly isn’t necessary for interaction. Differences are handled-- usually-- in a pretty rational manner. What is then required is simply an extention of this mindset: cooperation, recognition of individual abilities, peaceful disagreement.
One thing I’d like to mention. I strenuously oppose a liberal society on certain principles I have, even though I think such a society is required because of the huge leaps in education it will provide. I am somewhat of a paradox in that.
I am unaware of how to address the issue of high technology which seems to require businesses of incredible size and means. I am unaware of the economics of competing currencies which is sure to happen in anarchy. So, I must admit that there are several issues which (to me) argue against anarchy even given the mindset. I usually choose, then, not to argue those points and just take the tack of a philosophical/political ideal as opposed to a factual alternative. For, truly, I am also of the opinion that most economic issues manage to work themselves out through the politics of human interaction, but even that is a pretty weak case. So, I can’t say whether high technology is possible under anarchy. If someone could demonstrate to me that it is economically impossible due to the complications of multiple currencies and the lack of corporations even given the mindset then I, for one, would consider anarchy ultimately impossible.
Normally, though, you won’t see me argue anarchy anyway; I usually stick with the Libertarian society.
But as a sort of flip-side thought experiment, pretend the anarchic society exists, and you visit it (perhaps as a time traveller or something). You offer to them, “What stops people from robbing each other?”
“Robbing?”
“Yeah.”
“Why would they do that? Then we’d have to go back to limiting our freedoms, keeping armed forces amongst the people, locking people away in prisons, 24 hour cameras in public, eroded privacy… no one finds that preferable, even if many of us don’t have the same amount of material comfort. Why would anyone want such a life? The small bit of material comfort a theif might get from robbery doesn’t compare to the freedom and happiness that comes from living without a fear of retribution, living without every move being under scrutiny by a shifting standard of law and justice.”
I did not mention anything about forced order. Or do you truly believe the sole purpose of government is to simply usurp peoples rights and bully them through the use of jack-booted thugs?
I suppose that theoretically you could have order without forced order. But it isn’t likely. To build anything grander than a few huts or other stuff that can be thrown together by more than a handfull of volunteers, some degree of order and administration is required. That administrative body must have some way of enforcing its decisions.
Most utopian philosophies don’t work because of one fatal flaw. They model society as a single group of like minded people sharing the same goals and ideals. There is only what is good for society and what is not good for society. They fail to account for the fact that society is formed by diverse groups of people that often have conflicting objectives.
For example, take an anarchist or socialist society that has decided to build a hydroelectric dam across a river. The dam will benefit a great number of people with electricity but its reservoir will flood out several towns, many of whose residents refuse to leave. So do the townspeople get evicted or does the project get scraped? Now what happens if the residents take arms to prevent being forcibly removed?
Most utopian societies can only work if individuals voluntarily give up their personal goals and objectives for the larger objectives of society. There is no need for police because there are no conflicts. There are no conflicts because there are no situations where one person or groups objectives would hinder another person or groups. And the only way that could happen is if everyone thought the same.
I read your post with interest, but I’ve no time enough to debate on all the point you made.
But ultimately, you rely on the belief that people would do what is in their best interest. And even assuming that it would actually lead to the “best possible world”,honestly, I don’t believe it will ever happen. I see no evidence around me that people (including myself) actually act to the best of their interests, and I’m convinced it won’t happen any time soon.
Also, can i point out that the examples of cooperation and non destructive behavior which seem to be for you evidences of a possible cooperation happen in an organized state, and mainly between people who have common interests.
Finally, it seems to (though in a somewhat blurry way…I didn’t think about it a lot), that such a society would require (like an ideal liberal society) that everybody would be perfectly informed about everything. Which is impossible.
In other words, I believe that your political views rely a lot on faith, not on observable realities. I won’t argue about it any more…it’s just my impression.
Organized? Organized how? Along anarchistic lines, I presume, since otherwise you don’t have an anarchy. Efficiently, since, as you said, efficiency is necessary, so we assume for the sake of argument that we have an efficient anarchy.
Profit? As in money? Why would there be, necessarily, any such thing as money in an efficient anarchy? Who would print it? What, other than the reputation of the person who had printed it, would cause other people to value it as anything more than a piece of paper? And why, if one were to find a reputation important in such a system (as I suspect one would), would someone take advantate of you?
I believe that is the purpose of a non-libertarian government, yes.
I don’t know. Your boss has no method of enforcing his decisions on me. How does any work get done at your place if he can’t tell me what to do?
Well, I hope I haven’t implied that they all share the exact same ideals. They only need to share a few very general ones.
So my choice is to point a gun at people to get them to resolve their differences to my standard only?
I don’t know. I think that is for them to work out.
I think by the time an anarchist society is even attempted people will be far beyond resolving differences with brute force. That is my whole point.
That is an extremely narrow view. In absence of a government this neulous societal opinion/goal/desire is a very hard thing to locate. With no centralized decision maker, no centralized power source, it is very hard to ascribe an opinion to such a large group of people.
I’m sorry, msmith, but I disagree with this outright. A conlict need not result in all out warfare between two interest groups. I can’t believe I am even required to defend non-violent resolution when we see examples of such every day. clair
I don’t expect people to act in their best interest; I don’t even know how one could come up with such a standard. I expect them to act in their self-interest, whatever they perceive that to be.
I know we won’t see such an event for a long time.
Everyone, people don’t have to think exactly the same to avoid killing each other, is this really so hard to believe? Sheesh.
Anarchy means that social organization is structured in such a way that it does NOT put someone (or for that matter several someones) in a position of power (rule) over others.
You are correct in stating that this does not not mean disorder. If we are speaking of anarchy as a viable system of social organization (even for hypothetical purposes), then to me that implies an anarchy that is NOT disorderly, since it hard to be efficient and get things done without having some order.
This is akin to someone saying that it is silly to think people would strive to do excellent quality work simply because the economic system is set up to reward excellence, because people are just going to be lazy and put in the minimum that lets them draw their paycheck.
In an anarchic system, people would not have to be motivated by a bunch of altruistic idealistic visions of voluntary cooperation; the fact that such a system would almost inevitably rely on reputation and reciprocities implies that the system would reward cooperative behaviors in plainly material ways. Halfway-enlightened plain old selfishness (plus the inertia of people’s tendency to emulate the behavior of others in a functioning social system) oughta be sufficient.
I agree with a lot of what you self-professed anarchists are saying. I just don’t think what you’re describing it anarchy.
Some of you have described a society in which there are laws which prohibit people from taking advantage of other people. You didn’t explicitly say so, but presumedly these laws are enforced (otherwise they don’t really exist). Enforcing the law means using some kind of force (physical or otherwise) against those people who choose to break the law. And I’m assuming these laws were derived at by some form of majority opinion. The other alternatives are legislation by some elite majority (a prospect that I beleive no anarchist would support) or a requirement that all laws must have universal approval (in which case any prospective criminal need only withdraw his approval of a law in order to make his action legal).
So we’ve described a society in which the majority of the people get together, enact laws they feel will benefit society, and then enforce them upon everyone in the society. Can anyone explain how this is radically different from what we’re doing now?