I think the idea Pepperlandgirl is that anarchists want people to take more responsibility for themselves. The issue here is whether government is an unneccessary evil.
picmr
I cannot fathom how people have any rights under anarchy. When a person has a right, it necessarily entails that other people’s actions must be constrained to keep this from happening. Without any way to compel people to respect the rights of others, those rights cannot exist.
Any libertarians in the house? I for one would like to hear from you on this topic. I am curious to know how wedded you are to the idea of a minimal state as opposed to none at all, and why.
picmr
picmr:
Actually, I am pretty sure that waterj2 is a Libertarian, as am I.
For my answer to your question, which isn’t based on any grand theory (and I don’t know how it fits into Libetarianism), I would say that we need government because of assholes. Most people are not assholes, but any in any group, you can always find a vocal minority of them.
If you had anarchy, I bet most people would live in a fair and honest way, work to provide for themselves, and try to deal fairly with others. But they’re always be some assholes who weasel out of contracts, sell yellow lead and call it gold, and push smaller people around.
To me, government provides a framework of rights to try to make sure everyone is equally protected from assholes so the rest of us can live peaceably and productively.
-VM
Thanks Smartass, I rather thought that waterj2 was a least a libertarian fellow-traveller (how can you capitalise libertarian?), but was interested in libertarians’ explicit address of the the minimal state/ none at all issue.
I appreciate your answer, and it makes sense to me, grand or not. However, I think most of us would be arseholes given the opportunity. Some are incorrigible, most of us are just waiting 'til the night is dark enough.
[partial hijack] What are your arseholes doing now? Are they criminals, Ponzi speculators, police…?
picmr
Oh and I should add that I presume you back away from the “every dollar” part of your sig line Smartass. 
Speaking as an anarchist –
a) A “state” (government, etc) is a noun to us only in the sense that a dance is a noun. On a more fundamental level, it is a verb; it is a set of interactive behaviors. 99% of these behaviors are forms of communication. The individuals at any given time are free (if we may ignore the ones that are literally, physically bound or chained or caged), but so are the individuals with whom they interact, and the behaviors of those other individuals are pretty predictable as a result of shared understandings, understandings that are not only shared but EXPECTED to be shared. Please note that I am not describing a hypothetical or ideal social condition, I’m describing an immutable fact that is currently and always true.
b) In light of the above, reconceptualize anarchy as a system in which the dance of communication we do does NOT have us placing decision-making power unequally in the hands of “rulers” (governors, legislators, police officers, army generals, middle school principals, etc). Could that WORK? The real question is how to organize communication so that decisions do indeed get made and so that we, collectively, share an understanding of what they consist of. People who equate anarchy with chaos assume that no such shared communication would exist. Certainly it would not if we failed to have a traditional government (a system where some people have power over other people) and ALSO failed to have anything else INSTEAD. So the real question regarding the possibility of a functioning anarchy is:
“Is there an organized pattern of communicating that shared decision-making power equally and still results in shared understandings of what decisions have been made? And, if so, what is it (or, if multiple, what are they)?”
c) Structure that does not array PEOPLE in a hierarchy but nevertheless organizes human endeavors is orderly (and can create order) but does not contradict anarchy. You could, for example, have a hierarchy of meeting sizes (how many are to be in attendance), meeting intervals (how often they occur), decision-permanence (how ad hoc or how cast in stone a consensual agreement is considered to be, and therefore how simple or how complex the process of modifying or overturning it), and so forth.
d) A functional anarchy must meet certain pragmatic requirements, lofty though our intentions for it must be. We tend to seek anarchy because we want great personal freedom and an end to institutionalized inequality and stultifying coercion, which is well fine and good, but an anarchy would survive only if the trains run on time and the asphalt of the roadways can handle the traffic. And we will actually GET an anarchy when and only when anarchic communications processes are significantly MORE efficient than the traditional vertical hierarchy. And that means more efficient in the traditional hierarchy’s venue: it has to be a more effective way to exist as a corporate entity.
e) The process of establishing a functional anarchy would be greatly accelerated if interested speculators were to invest in experiments in communicative-structure deployment of this nature.
tymp: Well, I guess we disagree on how well corporations would get along if the gov’t wasn’t there to keep them in line, but you’re right, that’s a topic for another thread.
AHunter3: You’ve brought up interesting points, but I have difficulty imagining what efficient “anarchic communications processes” are. If I follow you correctly, you’re saying that when individuals collectively can apply enough pressure to convince others to act in a manner consistent with the best interests of society as a whole, anarchy will be feasible. So instead of relying on the policeman and his gun as representatives of society’s interest in preventing that arsonist from setting fire to people’s houses, we would rely on the cumulative pressure applied by all the other individuals in society, without any of them acting as a designated representative with special governmental power, like the policeman.
So then rule by no one is effectively rule by everyone?
I like the balance, but cannot imagine the specific conditions under which this situation can arise. Do you have any thoughts along those lines?
picmr:
Well, you have to hold down the Shift key…
Actually, when I say that I am a Libertarian, I usually mean that I am a member of the Libertarian Party, which is capitalized in all the mail they send me, so I capitalize it, too.
As far as I can tell, I am also a libertarian in the philosophical sense as well.
Also, since I am a touch-typist, capitalizing is easy for me and I generally like it. Lastly, having spent most of the last 9 months in Germany, some of their habits have rubbed off on me (they capitalize every noun).
I disagree. I think there needs to be a pretty serious perceived need as well, for most people.
I don’t think I understand the question.
Depends on what you mean. I don’t claim that the government can function for free, but I do support Harry Browne’s plan to eliminate income taxes.
-VM