Shodan, anarchy would largely be marked by the lack of a permanent power structure. This includes but is not limited to laws and those that enforce them.
Note this does not mean that there are no structures, nor that there is no exercise of power as need be.
msmith, a question.
How long do you suppose it would take the average American or Brit to have a solid understanding of all the laws that apply to them, and what would be required to do so? I am trying to understand your use of the word “need” as it applies in practice.
I personally favor a gradualist approach. There’s basically a two pronged strategy wherein the existing political system is rendered more equitable from the inside and made irrelevant from without.
The first part would involve a decrease in Federal power back closer to the original constitutional intent (in other countries, whatever the analogous equivalent would be). On the other end, and increase in local power so that local governments become more relevant to the needs of their citizens. In general an increase in democratic tendencies over republican (not the parties but the political systems). The eventual goal being a direct local democracy with significant decision making power that recognized strong individual freedoms.
The second part is primarily what would differentiate it from american capitalist libertarianism. This would involve a localization of the economy wherever practicable. A forming of non-expoitive financial relationships such as in cooperatives. An increase in community involvement, awareness, and appreciation. The idea being that a strong community can work more fluidly and come to consensus quicker and replace certain government functions (like dealing with homelessness, poverty, and providing education). Much of this work is already being done.
Anarchy leads to the formation of government and then to capitalism. Soon, people will be tired of living in their own garbage and hire people to take garbage to a dump. People will pay in goods and then with money. Basically, if we regressed back to anarchy, we’d recreate every economic reform and invention, out of necessity, until we are back to where we are now, wearing denim jeans and shitting in toilets.
The two issues that occur to me with your scenario are;
[ul][li]It seems to assume that management by committee, or by consensus, is as or more efficient than other models. My experience has been that this has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages I think we would both already recognize. The disadvantages are that such a model makes decisions much slower and less efficiently (the speed of one person deciding vs. a committee deciding), and that in many instances, the opinion of an expert is worth more than that of the group. [/li][li]Your economic model of cooperatives also (forgive me if I misunderstand you) assumes that cooperatives are as market-efficient as hierarchies. If they are, then cooperatives will naturally gain market share over other kinds of business. If they are not, are you suggesting that the government subsidize or support such cooperatives over other businesses? If so, aren’t you centralizing political power more than at present? [/ul][/li]
I would be interested in a response of whatever length you can manage.
AHunter3, if you are still reading this thread, you asked on the page before whether I was just saying “pipe-dream, na-na-na” or had a real point. I wrote a reply, then left for the weekend (I don’t check this stuff on the weekends), but apparently it didn’t get posted. Not sure why, I guess I wasn’t logged in.
Anyway, pretty much what I had written has been addressed, so I won’t re-post, and I agree with you, it’s probably pointless to continue this debate. You’ll never convince me, because it’s too idealistic and unproven by history, and I’ll never convince you for whatever reasons you have, so why bother. Keep meeting with your fellow anarchists, though. At least it’s better to discuss politics than watch reality TV.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
The two issues that occur to me with your scenario are;
[list][li]It seems to assume that management by committee, or by consensus, is as or more efficient than other models. My experience has been that this has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages I think we would both already recognize. The disadvantages are that such a model makes decisions much slower and less efficiently (the speed of one person deciding vs. a committee deciding), and that in many instances, the opinion of an expert is worth more than that of the group. [/li][/QUOTE]
It’s true that a committee can slow things down. Certain day to day decisions can be relegated to individuals without giving them the sort of authority now invested in the government. Any committee that will survive will listen to and value the opinion of experts. And some of the best “decision makers” still rely on the work done by committees to influence their decisions anyway.
[QUOTE]
[li]Your economic model of cooperatives also (forgive me if I misunderstand you) assumes that cooperatives are as market-efficient as hierarchies. If they are, then cooperatives will naturally gain market share over other kinds of business. If they are not, are you suggesting that the government subsidize or support such cooperatives over other businesses? If so, aren’t you centralizing political power more than at present? [/li][/QUOTE]
Efficiency is not the only measure of success even in capitalism. “Branding” is highly important. Sure people could buy the cheaper soda, but people want Coke or Pepsi. There is a certain group that like to buy from collectives and they are willing to spend a little more if need be. I won’t make any assertions about efficiency, because I don’t think the research has been done.
My experience has been that certain goods and services take naturally to collectives. The cooperative coffee shop near my house offers lower prices than most typical coffe shops, yet still gives ALL of their employees medical benefits. Some areas will have more problems than others, but the cooperative idea is relatively new and I don’t think we know yet what they’re capable of. One can make assertions about their limitations, but at this point I consider them unfalsifiable.
As far as subsidies, I don’t think that they will be necessary. I would favor tax breaks which in my mind is actually a form of decentralization. I might also favor a streamlining of the non-profit process for cooperatives. If they choose to go the non-profit route, the tax breaks are already there.
Not all cooperatives are well run, so I don’t think subsidies are necessarily good. I wouldn’t mind seeing a small amount of money going to educating people about the possibilities and making the start-up process easier. This could probably function as an arm of the micro-economic incentives and consulting already in place in our government. Basically just a slight restructuring of what’s already in place to accomodate that business model. If the long term survival of the co-op is not dependent on the government, I think some help could be a good thing.