Laws, social contracts, rules of order, commandments, whatever. They work out the same in the real world. Basically, it’s the rules they say people shouldn’t do certain things.
For example, I’ll assume most people would agree rape shouldn’t be allowed. Some societies would enact laws criminalizing rape, some would declare a religious prohibition, some would assume relatives and friends of the victim would retaliate against the rapist, and some would feel opposition to rape was implied by the social contract. But in any case, some people would choose to violate this rule and commit rape. In which case the society could either take some effective measures against the perpetrator or not. But having chosen to commit rape once, it can be assumed that the rapist will choose to commit it again unless some effective measure is taken.
So can you explain why people who choose to perform harmful acts now, even in the face of threatened government force, would stop committing those same actions if there was no consequence to their actions? Don’t simply assume that in some future society, human nature will change. Criminal activity has been a constant since the dawn of mankind and in the absence of contrary evidence, it can be assumed it will continue to be so.
The social contract is so far from law that I can’t even believe you’d say that.
In which case the society could either take some effective measures against the perpetrator or not.
[/quote]
Society doesn’t have to do anything; I would expect there would certainly be some retribution, possibly group retribution, which would amount to more than a warm bed, good TV and three meals a day.
Yeah, we all know human nature doesn’t change. Why, I can’t imagine how that whole idea of “no slavery” ever came about; everyone knows some people are meant to be slaves. And how did we ever lose “divine right?”
Ok that actually makes sense. It just annoys me when people think that there should instantly be no government at all. That’s just stupid. But what you’re talking about makes sense. Thanks for bringing it up.
This is a fairly naive and simplistic view of government. Is the FAA or Department of Motor Vehicles the same as the Gastapo? No. They are simply beurocratic organizations that form a necessary fuction in our society.
That is because you are not in our work community. If you lived in our community you would be subject to our rules.
Who said anything about guns? We have courts and other forms of arbitration today. But in the end, the government reserves the right to enforce the decision. By force if necessary.
Thats a cop out. You have two groups of people with two mutually exclusive objectives. If the villagers decide they don’t want to give up their home then a project that would benefit tens of thousands of people gets scrapped.
The reason you see non-violent resolution to problems every day is because:
a) The Federal government has the greatest means of violence within its boarders.
b) This acts as a deterent to using violence to resolve disputes.
It has nothing to do with killing each other. It has to do with having an ability to enforce the rules of society. There will always be a criminal element because there will always be people who feel that societies rules are not for them. Human nature does not change that much. Sure, slavery is outlawed in the US. But do you believe there aren’t people who still beleive that others exist only to improve their own status?
You’re messing up “human nature” and “moral values”, here. The concepts of what is “right” and “wrong” may change. Slaevery used to be right and now is wrong. What doesn’t change (human nature), IMO, is that there will always be people who will want to do what is considered “wrong” if it serves their interests. Without an organized society forbidding the “wrong” actions and enforcing its rules, these people will do the “wrong” things, no matter what.
Though I’m really not in the same philosopic/political boat than erislover, I believe there’s an answer to this issue in erislover’s ideal society. The “thousands of people” will offer money (or whatever equivalent to it) to the villagers, up to the point that the said villagers will think that what is offered to them compensate their desire to stay in the valley. However, in order for such a system to work, two assumptions must be made :
1)People are rationals AND everything can be atributed a “value” in monetary term. It isn’t true (for instance “my great-father, my father and myself always lived in this house. I won’t leave it, whatever they will offer”)
2)They are fair and do not abuse from their position (for instance "living here is worth 1000 , IMO...but since these guys up there desperatly need this dam, I certainly can get at least 1 millions ").
Concerning 2) : One could argue that it’s not an abuse, since the land is given a much greater value by the mere fact that it’s situated in a place very convenient to build a dam. The idea would be : “building a dam is very important to you, and you attribute to this building a subjective value of 1 million . So, my land has *actually* a value of 1 million . What value I attribute to the land (1000$) doesn’t matter”.
But I totally disagree with this concept since it’s similar to “What value (very low) I attribute to my gun being pointed in a given direction doesn’t matter. What matters is the value (all your money) you attribute to the gun not being pointed in the direction of your head”
clair first, because yours warrants a shorter reply.
I think you’re assuming there is a hard and fast set of morals. People do what other people consider wrong. It is a rare person who does an action that they feel is wrong.
msmith
Every government enforcement agency draws its power from the ability to take freedom, money, and life should it find an infraction. The end.
Would I be subject to them, or would I have chose to live under them?
Yes. This is what anarchists don’t like.
Oh come on, a cop out? That’s like asking people a hundred years ago how they made popcorn without a microwave. The government wouldn’t have dissolved until such a thing was possible. If this hydro dam, for example, was really so beneficial many people would find a way to make it work; most likely, the poeple who would have to move to make it possible would be compensated for in some other way. And in the end, if they still didn’t want to leave, what are you going to do? Are you going to take it from them? Is your problem with anarchy that you cannot live without forcing other people to accept your values, goals, wants, and needs?
Is that so? So, if we disagree long enough on this point you will attempt to kill me?
There aren’t any hard and fast rules to break anymore. Even still, you feel that people will do actions which are detrimental to the health and well being of other citizens. Society’s rules aren’t for everyone; the mentality of anarchy is that no one’s brand of society is any better than anyone else’s; the element of force as a means to solve human relation problems is gone. It is gone precisely because at that time people know that if they use force as a means they will lose all the freedoms they have. In modern society, the criminal doesn’t feel he or she has much to lose. By the time anarchy is even thought of as a solution this will no longer be the case. The economic and technological developments available will entail that being a criminal and risking capture will have faded away. By the time anarchy is tried the crime you cause will no longer be there.
History, when properly taught, is a great teacher.
I expect them to believe that. I also expect that “by any means necessary” will no longer be a viable alternative to peaceful cooperation and ineraction.
I believe right now that other people exist for my benefit, just as I exist for others benefit. This is the core spirit of cooperation.
I didn’t assume there was a hard and fast set of morals. I wrote “right” and “wrong” without specific reference to what was right and wrong.
However, I did assume there was a common accepted set of morals in a given society. If it’s not the case in your ideal society, what if me and my friends consider “right” to enslave you, while you and your friends consider it’s “wrong”? Once you’re captured, what are you going to do? Probably use weapons, if you have the chance, to challenge my “right” to own you.
You could say that enslaving people is in total contradiction with the concept of anarchy, but in this case you’re assuming there is a common set of morals in this ideal society.
Also, I beg to disagree with your final point. Most burglars and murderers do feel that stealing and killing is wrong.
Are you assuming that in some hundred years, people will have found a way to solve issues related to conflicting interests without using any kind of common rule and force? Do you think that social science will make progress in the same way technology did? that by then there will be “moral issue solvers” like now we have microwaves?
I note that you didn’t respond to my points, when you assume that they’ll find a way to compensate them :
What if the land owners try to abuse from their position?
What if they can’t be compensated (like in my example of the guy refusing to leave his ancestral house)
In such a situation, what is actually likely to happen in reality is that the people wanting the dam to be build will expell the land owners by force (perhaps giving them some compensation if they are good natured). Exactly what the government does now. Except that everybody (not only the people who want a dam) has some control over the government.
And if you assume that for some reason, the people who need to build this dam will refuse to take the land from their owners, this society is sub-optimal (since something which would be a great objective benefit for many will be cancelled due to perhaps one person who thinks that he would lose something he subjectively consider invaluable)
Some people would. Never heard of bar fights?
Once again, what if my non-hard and fast rules states that making you work for me for free is “right”?
What kind of freedom will they lose if they use force? If I enslave you, not only I don’t lose any freedom, but I gain more freedom, since I don’t have to work any more. And if my own set of moral rules is based on “egoism is the natural way to go”, “only the stronger deserve to live” or “americans are inferiors and should be enslaved”, I even enjoy a perfect peace of mind.
Or do you expect that people will share a common set of “hard and fast rules” forbidding the use of force (which seems to be contradictory with your basic assumption) and won’t break these rules, despites the lack of institution (or whatever else) to enforce them (wich is, in my opinion, wishful thinking).
Here, are you assuming that these devellopments will give us such a productivity that each of us will enjoy quite freely whatever he could desire, and so won’t have to recourse to criminal activity? If so, that’s possible (though a lot of people think that men always desire something else they don’t have). But even in this case, I suppose a minimal set of rules and ways to enforce them would be needed (like to avoid that someone break your “machine which provides for everything” just for the sake of it or because he would like to see you suffering.
Anyway, it would be a society so different from our curent one that there’s no point in debatting about it, and our political category (communism, capitalism, anarchy, whatever…) most probably wouldn’t make sense anymore.
Yes, but you don’t state how such a thing as an universal peaceful cooperation would appear
It’s quite strange to note that a similar belief in cooperation for the ultimate benefit of everybody lead us to totally opposite conclusions when we go down to practical matters. As proven by our disagreement (if I remember correctly, I had this disagreement with you) concerning the necessity of foreign economical aid.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
Every government enforcement agency draws its power from the ability to take freedom, money, and life should it find an infraction. The end.
And no government is somehow better? Would it be better if anyone could get behind the stick of a 747 and attempt to fly it from JFK to LAX? What about the US Postal Service? They only deliver the mail. Is there no mail in you anarchy society?
You choose to live under them or you leave the community (either by choice or by force).
And that is too bad for the anarchists because the world doesn’t work any other way.
No because of a) and b) and because the issue is not a matter of life or death to me. But lets say I lived in an anarchist society and you wanted to build that dam that would destroy my house. Might I not be inclined to violence to protect my home? I may not kill you but I could try to destroy the construction equipment.
Msmiths day in anarchyland:
11:00am - Wakes up late because he doesn’t feel like contributing to society.
11:30 - Gets a little hungry. Decides to break into his neighbors house for food.
1:30 pm - Watches TV and drinks for the rest of the day(or the equivalent form of entertainment)
5:30pm - Neighbor comes over and starts complaining about broken door and missing food and beer. My shows coming on so I bash him across the head with a 5-iron and go back inside.
How? There’s no police force. There isn’t even a Big Brother to implant us with thaught control chips.
Basically what you are saying is that in anarchy, each person creates their own rules. Those rules, however, do not include the use of force or violence. So you have therefore set limits on what is acceptable behavior in that society. If there are limits as to what is acceptable, there must be some way to control those elements that wish to operate outside those limits. I don’t generally resolve disputes with violence because I don’t think it is always the best solution. I also know that there are people who do not think like that and do act on their destructive impulses. Unless the human psyche changes dramatically, there will always be people who see something that someone else has and wish to simply take it. You can’t have it both ways. You must either restrict a persons ability to conceive of violent actions or you must restrict their ability to act on those thoughts.
clairobscur - Actually, the dam could never be built because there is no government to propose it. Even if you could, theres no building inspector to certify that that the plans are even sound. Even if there was a building inspector and he declared it unfit, its too costly to build it right so they can just build it half-assed. It’s taking forever to build because people only work when they feel like it. Aint anarchy grand?
:shrug: Not really, but sorta. In anarchy people have given up force in human relationships because of the oppression that it brings. So the anarchists would try to act in a way that doesn’t necessitate the reemergence of force as a means of cohabitation.
Behavior which doesn’t involve the use of force; if people exhibited such behavior there would again be a need for a forceful government. The idea, you see, is that people by this time would act in such a manner as to not require a government and the oppression it brings.
Yes: the knowledge that this would cause the return of government.
Or you must live in a society which grants no privilege to those who use it, and hence there is no incentive.
:rolleyes:
clair
There is a comment accepted goal: to live without the use of force in human relationships. Slavery easily goes against this standard.
See Criminality: Economic and Social Causes of. It all depends on what sort of way they view morality. I would assume most are ultilitarian with a few core codes that they have (don’t snitch, or love your mother, or some such). As such, though they may consider murder wrong, they find a way to rationalize it in light of their current situation and how they view their survival.
In a hundred years? Ha! Social science may and probably will make progress in a matter analogous to normal technology: we will find better, more peaceful ways to resolve whatever differences we have.
Not really. the example you gave was progressive, but not necessary and definitely not life threatening. I suspect in such a scenario people will just wait for the guy to leave of his own will, attempt to talk him into it by pointing to reasons why they want it, or finally just give up. He was, after all, there first.
Is everyone’s problem here that they cannot live without force, or that they think others can’t?
By whose standard? Yours? Why are you so bent on forcing your standard on this guy? Why is your appeal to technocracy, progression, or altruism so much more important than his, who merely wants to live in peace in what you said was his ancestral home?
Sure I have. Your point?
They will lose the anarchy, as any act of force like that is going to go against the anarchistic ideal. As such, there will most likely be a revolt of sorts against this person. Should many people do such affairs, well then I think a government would be reestablished. Bye bye freedom, all over again.
Was attempting to have a slave really worth it?
No, not whatever he could desire. An individual would have at his access enough so that he is free to pursue his desires peacefully. No society anywhere at any time could ever satiate all desires; I would think that is axiomatic: humans have unlimited wants. However, after a certain point a person’s needs and rather immediate wants can be satisfied, at which point the need to force more out of people is not worth the effort of having to face a society all over again which does not allow the freedom the anarchic one provides.
Not explicitely; I did state that this change would occur inside the excessively liberal society/reactionary conservative one. While the liberal society provides much for the most, the regulation necessary to keep the effect up is stifling (everything not forbidden is compulsory). The movement to follow would be the conservative movement, away from excessive regulation and on toward deconstruction. But with the goal of keeping such liberal programs active, only voluntary. The realization is that we can be nice to each other and still get what we want without excessive effort or regulation. The goal of the conservative society is to try to get people to provide for themselves as much as possible; peak efficiency outside of the legal construct. Programs usually handled by the government are drastically shifted to the private sector who seeks to maintain its status through honest business practices instead of having to deal with the (now decreasing) beuracracy and waste of resources that came with dealing with the government’s taxation and licensing-style practices. After that comes the libertarian, where everyone (generally) can and does provide for themselves without the need for a massive police force to settle disputes except in the more extreme sitations. The court system is no longer bogged down with civil suits as the educational foundation provided by the previous societies enables nearly everyone to be able to handle contract negotiation and their own economic affairs. As society becomes more productive and maintains its spirit of cooperation, the police force becomes largely for emergencies and the military is the last true bastion of government. There it stays until such time as the entire world achieves such a state, at which point the military is no longer useful for anything as there is no outside force to defend against.
As use of resource efficiency through market means becomes more efficient, the govenment becomes completely superfluous and people consider it a waste of funds and effort to do something they are all a part of already anyway. Serious efforts are spent in limited scenarios and geographic locations to completely remove the formal government and police force. Apart from a few minor setbacks, opinions in these areas give way to a spreading effect and government gradually dissolves, gives way to a cooperative market system, and human interaction disputes are settled in temporary “courts” set up instead of wasting money on permanent ones.
So, time frame? I think most anachists would agree that the time needed for such a thing to happen approaches infinity. I know of not one single anarchist who feels it is a workable system in any forseeable time frame. It is the world created by idealists; I don’t think anyone deludes themselves over this. I surely don’t, anyway.
For a moment I considered responding to all your points, and then explaining to you, how, based on similar assumptions, my ideal communist society or my ideal global dictatorship (with me as dictator)would evolve from the current situation and would be the most efficient and fulfilling society ever.
But it would be a waste of time.
Obviously, you’re a total idealist. Idealism can be useful, since it makes things change (for the worst or the better). I just want to point out that idealism usually require :
1)An ultimate goal which is undisputably better than anything else in the mind of the idealist : anarchism, communism, christian nation, whatever…
2)An evil ennemy which must be fought : government, capitalists, godless atheists,…
3)A faith that all people will ultimately “see the light” and live accordingly: understand that the use of force is counter-productive, that everybody must work according to his mean to provide for everybody according to his needs, that God is the only and true god,…
But the world don’t work that way : Perhaps there is an “optimal” society. But nobody has any serious evidence of the kind of society it would be. Especially since the ideals are so different to any actual models as to be “untestable”. I mean : we can argue about the privatization of a given power company with facts, figures, other examples… We can even argue about the privatization of all power companies. But there’s no way we could argue along the line “is my ideal society better than your ideal society?” since we have no basis for comparisons, we have different hopes,etc…I would say that it’s more or less a matter of faith. Nothing more
There’s no class of “evil ennemy” around. There are people who can commit evil deeds. There are organizations which are inneficients, regressives, or even dangerous. But one must try to understand their real goals and motives and the consequences of their actions/existence. Then only you can have a realistic and balanced view, make your mind, and possibly fight them. Otherwise, you’re fighting a strawman. The goal of the governments isn’t to opress people, the goal of the corporations isn’t to starve workers, the goal of the atheists isn’t to serve the devil.
Perfection doesn’t exist. Men are what they are : egoist, altruist, violent, calm, cultured, ignorant, cooperative, uncooperative,intelligent, stupid, hateful, loving, narrow or open-minded, etc…and they won’t change any time soon. It’s a reality and you must take it into consideration and work with it.
In other words : you can’t ignore reality
clair, I think I have noted repeatedly that such a society is supremely unlikely, if not impossible. You asked what form it would take, and I offered my answer.
If an idealist is a person who seeks a better life by aiming for an unreachable goal, and thus always stresses that whatever state we’re in it could always be better, then you got me.
As I said, I don’t usually argue anarchism, but the op suggested that anarchists are all violent people. Some of us figured that we’d put that dog to rest.
However, I am always wary of people who refuse a possible solution because “that just isn’t human nature.” In another thread, under another context, I would definitely ask just what human nature is that you are so sure it wouldn’t work. (maybe after all these damn evolution threads die away! sheesh)
Give me the attention of a couple thousand people who sincerely want anarchy to work, preferably people who all live locally to one another (alternatively, with a high rate of willingness to relocate). I think we’d have a system that would be lucrative and useful to its participants up and running in a matter of months; self-sustaining within 9 years with a tendency to grow; complete replacement of conventional “archistic” government as well as the money system in less than 10 generations.
We don’t need to overthrow anything or make existing government “go away”. All we need to do is outstrip conventional ways of organizing in terms of efficiency.
I look around me and continue to think that the bar really isn’t set all that high.
I take a couple of days away from the board and now I’ll never catch up with this thread.
However, erislover, I will point out that you never specifically answered what would happen to a rapist in your ideal society. Instead you changed the subject to slavery, which is an unlikely subject for an anarchist or libertarian to bring up. Slavery wasn’t ended because human nature changed. It ended when governments passed laws and forced the slaveowners to free their slaves. In the United States, in particular, those guns you find so abhorrent played a decisive role. In an anarchist state, I suppose there would still be a minority of people who choose to enslave other people. The majority of the people would find this offensive and deplorable, of course, but wouldn’t be able to figure out how to stop it without, you know, using force or something.
Erislover, it seems that what’s been happening on this thread is other people talk about their opinions of how society works and you post to say that that’s not how it should be. How about for a change, you describe your views of how society should work. Not in vague terms but in concrete details.
Well, if it were an ideal society there wouldn’t be rape. However, as the example of rape shows (which isn’t a crime based on an economic cause, and possibly not in a societal one) having the laws don’t stop rape either. One does not need a government to exact retribution for a crime; one odes not need a government to attempt rehabilitation.
Right. And today most of the US finds the idea of slavery abhorrent.
I like guns; I support gun owners. I think that the legislation we have now is quite possibly too much.
As far as slave owners go, I think it is safe to assume that, under all circumstances short of Brave New World, there will always be a statistically insignificant portion of the population which holds ideas contrary to any social contract or government legislation. What changes in contexts of different (or nonexistent) governments is merely how such things are dealt with.
Well, then you misunderstand the primary premise I am espousing: that of not using force as a primary means. Reacting to force by implimenting force as self defense is, I think, an altogether different animal. Should you attempt to kill me I don’t care whether there is a government or not, I am either going to remove myself from the danger or, if not possible, attempt to subdue you by any means necessary. I do not need a law “allowing” self defense to do such a thing. I perform no action because the government gave me permission.
I don’t think this text area has that capacity. Should we try for something more specific?
So it breaks down to this: anarchist society is an ideal; ideal societies have no problems; therefore anarchist societies will have no problems; therefore anarchist societies don’t need solutions to problems. Unfortunately, erislover, your “arguments” remind me too much of another poster I used to try to discuss this subject with. He also seem to feel that all he needed to do to promote his viewpoint was state he was right and therefore anyone who disagreed with him must be wrong. I don’t see much point is participating in that form of non-debate, so I’m withdrawing from this thread.
I noted that in an ideal anarchy there would be no conflict of interests, much like in any other ideal society of any brand. That’s why they are ideal.
I also noted how a semi-practical anarchy can come to exist.
I also noted why I think such a thing is possible. It had nothing to do with eliminating every conflict of interest. It had everything to do with making people realize that a permanent government is not necessary given a certain mindset of mutual cooperation, compromise between conflicting interests, and the mentality of non-initiatory force. I strongly suspect you live every day of your life like this. Almost every person I know does (in fact, every person I personally know does AFAI can tell). Given sufficient education and economic means/incentive I offered that (or at least implied) almost all crime would disappear with the exception of sociopaths, those who are insane or otherwise incompetent, and persons who for whatever reason cannot uphold those three principles. For those cases I noted that a government is not necessary for the act of retribution nor for the act of rehabilitation.
Did you misrepresent him in your own mind as well? Seems like I’ve given plenty of things for you to chew on.
Plain and simple…anarchists don’t like being told what to do so they feel the world would be a better place without any kind of authority placing restrictions on their behavior.
No one likes being told what to do. With the exception of small children and sociopaths, most people acept that some form of struture and authority is necessary for society to progress.
Anarchy could work as a social structure, but we would not have anywhere near the level of comfort we posess now.
