We all get it better when we all work together, however I get it better when I use your weakness to my advantage. This is a problem with mutually cooperating anarchist societies.
Gang mentality is one of the reasons we need a government. If there is not a duly constituted group that can apply sufficient force on behalf of all, then me and my heavily armed cousins can take whatever we want from anyone with less force. What would stop us? Sure, the system works better for all, on average, if no one tries that. But it works much better for me if my group is the only one who tries it.
Why is using a knife pointless and counter productive to the knife user? Sure it is terrible for the one getting robbed, and it is bad for society as a whole, but if the knife wielder gets what he wants, it is highly productive from his point of view.
Unfortunately, even when people understand the principles, they need an outside framework to make it work. Case in point, a few years ago the California salmon fishers were asking the state to put a ban on salmon fishing. Why? Because they all knew that without the ban, they would have to go out and fish as much as they could while the fish lasted or lose out forever.
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why there is such a small percentage of police relative to the population, if we’re such savages. And where do we get the police from to guide us hopeless savages, if they’re cut from the same cloth?
As usual, people select the very worst of human nature and the most ridiculous definition of anarchy to make their entirely trivial case.
You can already take whatever you want from anyone with less force. To avoid this would require a level of state power, control, and spread vastly larger than anything we could ever bring to bear on the issue.
So when people stab, shoot, rob, and kill others without government, it is a proof we need government. When people stab, shoot, rob, and kill others in the face of a government, it’s proof we need a government. Sweet.
But I am saying that in the places where a permanent power structure like government works, it is in precisely the places where it is not needed, because government can’t actually do what people are claiming it does without the very cooperation statists are suggesting doesn’t exist in the first place.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/10-1
**If you want to know what anarchism is and why we should care, read Kropotkin.
by David Morris
On February 8, 1921 twenty thousand people, braving temperatures so low that musical instruments froze, marched in a funeral procession in the town of Dimitrov, a suburb of Moscow. They came to pay their respects to a man, Petr Kropotkin, and his philosophy, anarchism.
Some 90 years later few know of Kropotkin. And the word anarchism has been so stripped of substance that it has come to be equated with chaos and nihilism. This is regrettable, for both the man and the philosophy that he did so much to develop have much to teach us in 2012. **
Except on a small scale, I rather doubt that any ideal system (even capitalism or China’s “socialism”) will run smoothly over any extended period. People would need to agree on too much, I think.
For a government to work, it needs the backing of a vast majority of the population, or a vast amount of force. If 98% of the people want to live in peace a government will be able to keep the peace just fine. But even 2% of a government free society could cause serious problems for the other 98%.
And how could that ever possibly happen?
Have you ever watched two young children play? Without any education or indoctrination whatsoever both children will be just *waiting *for the first opportunity to fuck the other. Children are inherently and instinctively selfish little fucks, as are all juvenile mammals. They can’t be otherwise. Children are taught, through reward, threat an punishment, that the have to share and co-operate. It is in no sense a natural state., It is enforced on them through rules and laws.
Even under the most ideal situation with the most ideal humans, the other guy will just *waiting *for the first opportunity to fuck us. That is inevitable because of two inescapable facts: “Resources are scarce and not everybody can have everything they want” and “Everybody has their own goals and desires”. So long as those things remain true, and they must remain true for as long as humanity exists, then the other guy will be just *waiting *for the first opportunity to fuck us.
Talking about a world where “we’re not thoroughly convinced the other guy is just *waiting *for the first opportunity to fuck us” is about as sensible as talking about a world where we don’t need to breathe air.
In other words, your form of Anarchism works perfectly well provided that you have unlimited magic that makes it work at all, apparently some form of magical mind control that enforces uniformity.
Good thing we don’t put children in charge of… anything.
If we’re now to the point that even the family unit constitutes “government”, this thread should be locked, taken out and shot, and buried in an unmarked grave.
You really don’t understand that “ake whatever we want from anyone with less force” means “take whatever we want from anyone with less force without consequence”? :dubious:
Fine, it wasn’t expressly stated, but that is what it means
Ahh, no.
When people stab, shoot, rob, and kill others without government it multiplies the power by garnering them resources, including slaves, thus creating a positive feedback loop that must result in them *become *the government. See Somalia.
When people stab, shoot, rob, and kill others in the face of a government, it is stopped by the government before it garners any power. That is the primary role of government: to ensure that anti-social acts are not and effective means to an end.
Government is needed everywhere to stop a minority forcing its will on the majority.
20 years ago, before we had a a generation of brutalised children, 98% of people in Somalia weren’t violent thugs who took what they wanted. 98% of people wanted to live their lives as best they could, just like in the US. Unfortunately without any effective government a small number of people with guns simply took what they want. With no governance structure the other 98% were powerless to stop them. By virtue of taking everything they wanted those groups became more wealthy, they bought more guns and they hired more soldiers. Then other groups who didn’t want to be told what to do by them bought guns to defend themselves, and to compete they also had to take whatever they “needed” to buy more guns and hire more soldiers.
And suddenly Somalia had lots of governments and lots of rulers at constant war with one another.
Which rather illustrates that governments are needed everywhere. The vast majority of every population just wants tomorrow to be pretty much like today. Govenrments are needed ot control the 2%.
If you didn’t have any government in the US, how long do you think it would take for for criminal gangs to produce another Somalia? What do you think would stop the local street gang from robbing and raping whoever they like whenever they like? Street gangs make up less than 1% of the US populace, but what exactly would stop them doing exactly what they wanted in the absence of a government?
Good thing nobody suggested that we should.
Nice strawman though.
Good thing nobody suggested that he family unit constitutes “government”.
Nice strawman though.
So a world without government is a world without consequences?
I hope not.
Yes: ineffective government. My bone in that particular issue is that it is not by itself the existence of government which corresponds to an orderly society, which was implied. In order for a government to be a decent government, people must already have decided not to behave in the way all the statists have been implying is just lying in wait, foiled by those rascally cops and judges.
I understand this is what people are saying. Do you understand that my point is that it is not the government which actually accomplishes this feat?
Government is a minority forcing its will on the minority. That is what everyone is saying this whole time: government has the guns, so it can force its will, because people with guns set the rules.
Without effective government, you say? Hmm. Maybe they just didn’t have enough guns.
Clearly they just needed more guns. This is all it takes, so I’m told.
It illustrates exactly the opposite: that governments are not the source of social stability.
Longer than you think, I guess. How would I know?
Nothing stops them now. Gangs form because of a lack of “effective government.” People have given up their authority over their dominion to the government, which then turns its back on those very people and is unable to fulfill its duty. Gangs are a natural consequence of that, yes.
Why stop at street gangs? What stops civil war? I mean—fuck it. People with guns just have unlimited authority. What stops military coups?
It’s strange that even in violence-torn failed states like Somalia or Afghanistan or Bosnia in the 1990s or Lebanon in the 1980s, you don’t really have everyone with guns: you have lots of young to middle-aged men in gangs or militias, but they’re still a small minority of the population. Mothers with children don’t have guns, white-haired elders don’t have guns, the men who don’t want to fight as soldiers don’t have guns; arguably they’d be better off if they did, but instead they’re nearly always defenseless sheep sitting there ripe for rapine, looting and slaughter. America is one of the few countries on Earth where anyone other than the war-making coterie of young to middle-aged men is likely to possess firearms. So I think you have to ask what a country would be like where almost literally everyone was armed, including the members of what’s traditionally the victim class, That might be a rather different situation than what we ordinarily think of as armed “anarchy”.
Great idea. What’s the worst that could happen?
Why would you think that?
It is.
Wrong. Just, utterly wrong.
In no possible sense can what you say be true. Even a moments thought will prove that what you say can not be true. In the US we know that large numbers of people people have decided to behave in the way all the statists have been implying is just lying in wait, foiled by those rascally cops and judges. They are called criminals. Most of them are in jail.
So we can prove your contention wrong right here. The US is a functional society, yet people have people must already have *not *decided not to behave in the way all the statists have been implying is just lying in wait, foiled by those rascally cops and judges
For the the twelfth time, what is required is that a majority of people with power must already have decided not to behave in the way all the statists have been implying is just lying in wait, foiled by those rascally cops and judges. In no sense does it require that everybody make that decision.
In contrast, for a Anarchic society to work, every single individual literally has to decide not to behave in the way. Literally every last one. because if even one person decides to act otherwise, the system collapses and he becomes ruler.
For crying out loud. We all understand that perfectly, and we are all demonstrating to you that you are wrong. It is government that accomplishes that feat. Absent a government with an effective judiciary, and effective legislature and an effective military, that feat could not be accomplished because any individual who wishes to will set himself up as ruler.
Without a government you need literally every single individual to consent to help his fellow man. If even one person deviates, he becomes the ruler and forms a government. With a government, so long as the majority of those with power wish to accomplish that end, then it will be accomplished. It doesn’t need to be everybody.
Wrong.
Yes, I said that several times before you joined this thread. That isn’t indicative that government is the minority forcing its will on the minority. In a democracy the government is the majority. Yes, it force sits will on the majority who want to rape and pillage unobstructed, that’s its primary job. That;s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t justify your claim that government is the minority forcing its will on the minority
That is certainly true enough. If they had enough guns they could have enforced a totalitarian government, which we know are highly effective. That’s the whole point. You keep claiming that you can have a system with no government, but in the real world a tiny percentage of people are going to get enough guns to form a totalitarian government, just as they did in Somalia.
You finally go it. Without government someone is inevitably going to get enough guns to form a government at gunpoint.
:dubious:
I just proved, at length, with examples, how a government is required for social stability. Nd your response is this one line non-sequitur. I really don;t think that you are debating in good faith here.
You just told us that you did know.
OK, you quite clearly don’t live in the same world as the rest of us. Because in the world the rest of us inhabit, the chances of being robbed or raped by a street gang is actually minuscule. And they are stopped by well armed and rigidly regimented police forces.
Honestly once you start claiming that in the USA street gangs rape an pillage whenever and wherever they want and nothing at all stops them, there is no longer nay point debating you. The disconnect between what you believe and the simple facts is so large that we no longer have the common reference point of consensus reality.
One of us is living in a fantasy land. Either it’s you, and your land where street gangs rape people in the middle of shopping malls every single day with no consequences, or my land where that doesn’t happen because people who do that sort of thing are sent to jail.
Yes, and?
How is this evidence for your ludicrous claim that street gangs rape people in the middle of shopping malls every single day with no consequences?
Do you have an answer to this apparent non sequitur?
I did. Wasn’t impressed. He seemed to believe that “people would just get along if you left them alone.” He provided no solution whatever to the problem of greedy or dishonest people taking advantage of others. He provided no solution to the problem of theft, let alone to the problem of murder.
He provided rosy visions of happy villagers making furniture and being content. He offered no answers whatever to the band of marauding horsemen coming over the plains and taking away your goods.
“If all men were angels, no government would be necessary.” James Madison.
I wouldn’t so much fear him becoming ruler; I fear him becoming ruiner. He can commit any crime he wishes, any outrage, any harm. There is no answer to one malcontent going on a rampage.
He might fail as a ruler: they’d just choose not to obey him. But without force, how can he be stopped from his own harmful exercise of force?
Anyway…nothing but a nitpick. I agree with what you’ve posted. Anarchy can only work if there is absolutely no dissent. It fails instantly, the moment any kind of disagreement of policy arises.
Ok I think I understand now what anarchist advocates are saying when they say “what prevents people from raping and killing right now?” and “well whats preventing a civil war right now?”.
The obvious answer is social norms for the vast majority of people, backed up with the threat of government sanctioned violence.
They are trying to say that if you could get everyone under a system of social norms conductive to anarchism then anarchism could work fine and dandy because there would be no rapers and murderers(or at least they would be the equivalent of serial killers in modern society a statistical oddity).
Well thats the trick then isn’t it? Getting everyone to abide by your political system due to deeply held beliefs, fuck man thats the ultimate secret! If you solve that ANY society can work great, communist or libertarian would all chug along smoothly.
I don’t think that. It was your response, that people could do whatever they want without consequences.
What. How is it that the same people in one of your ridiculous pictures who are raping and pillaging are now in this also ridiculous picture meek sheep helpless against one guy with a butterknife and hostile intentions?
No, you literally don’t. Why would everyone have to agree? Obviously, if this is your criterion, it will never be met. Argument won! Good show.
You just said that one guy will exercise his will in anarchy to form a government. Now governments are just sunshine and roses. So we need a government to protect us from… government?
Please don’t change the context. We were discussing a minority of people using force constituting a government. You don’t get to change your bullshit definition of government whenever it suits your purpose. When I disagree with this definition, I’m wrong because human nature makes people assholes who will automatically make governments because they picked up a gun to rob someone. When I agree with this definition, I’m wrong because you want to talk about other governments. It is bad enough that you expect your opponents to demonstrate how “literally everyone must agree” if there is to be no government without switching your own terms to bolster your point.
Back to this again.
OK, whatever. Enjoy.
The problem is that now you require every single individual to refuse to obey, from birth. Because if he issues the threat “Obey me or die” and a single person obeys him, he is now ruler. He can kill everyone else, and rule the one remaining person. He can also do this children of course, thus indoctrinating him into obeying him.
In the real world, he would become ruler if that was his desire. He would take children by force, steal the food to feed them, and raise them to obey him. Unless you have a magical world where not only does everybody but the minority obey the rules, but this is actually implanted genetically and not dependent on education, then rulership is inevitable.
And of course if you have created a world where everybody is genetically forced to follow the rules, you have created the single least anarchic society imaginable.
That’s about the size of it.
Anarchism works in one of two ways.
As you say, you magically make everybody mentally compatible with Anarchism and thus no longer fully human.
or
You redefine Anarchism to include a system with career professional politicians, career professional judges, career professional soldiers and career professional public servants elected by the populace. But that’s not a government, really truly it isn’t.
No, it wasn’t
The “same people” are the ones with the butterknife, not the victims.
Because if even one person decides to act otherwise, the system collapses and he becomes ruler. If you have a ruler, you do not have an Anarchic society.
That’s about the tenth time someone has said that in this thread.
It’s not my criterion, it’s inherent in the definition of “Anarchic”. You can’t have an anarchic society with a ruler enforcing his will by threat of violence.
No, we need a government that doesn’t arise directly from anarchy. To protect us from violent criminals.
“The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed.”
“Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state.”
The only definition I have ever been using.
Wrong.
You apparently don’t understand that there can be different *types *of government. A totalitarian military dictatorship is just as much a government as a hereditary Monarchy or a direct democracy. The mistake you are making is either not realising that these types of government exist, or not realising that they do not all have the same effects.
You are working form an assumption that the democratic government of the US works exactly the same way as the totalitarian cheifdoms of Somalia, and has exactly the same effects in the people living under it.
Of course that is not true.
I don’t expect that. I already demonstrated how “literally everyone must agree”.
What I would like to see is how you intend to ensure that everybody agrees without any means by which state policy is enforced, or any mechanism for determining the policy of the state.