# In a World of Anarchy. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-world-of-anarchy/127171 "2002-09-05T19:10:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2002, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-world-of-anarchy/127171/21 "2002-09-13T14:57:20Z")
Government: a formal (or absolute, depending), permanent power structure supporting a formal, permanent decision-making process. [By “permanent”, herein, one might take to mean “self-sustaining”] It is often asserted that in an anarchic “state of nature” humans would “naturally” fall into a regimented power structure, formalize it, and thus have (at least a minimal) State. The motivation behind this argument lends itself to appealing that a _uniform and objective_ decision-making process that all disagreeing parties can appeal to is necessary, and since they must appeal to this process, the process (in _its_ permanence) requires a physical force behind it analytically (else what are they appealing to?). Neither are analytically true, of course. To assert it so is to succumb to the union of the naturalistic fallacy of reasoning and the fallacy of affirming the consequent (i.e.—“look around at the world, and world history, to see that some state has always existed”). A power structure only needs to exist to assert the process; which is to say, the power structure exists only when the process itself is violated. Assuming no one violates the law, for example, shows that there needn’t be a formal power structure to support it. (This is not a utopian statement but a denial of the “obviousness” of a permanent power structure _as necessary_.) Now, what about the process? A permanent decision-making process only exists when it has the power to assert itself. Take the Bill of Rights, for example: guarantees freedom of religion. BUT… freedom _from government_, i.e.—freedom from the very force which exists but needn’t exist _necessarily_ except to support the process. The transcendence or elevation of the process to a moral valuation of _good_ (or perhaps even _best_ or _the only right way_) then locks the process down as necessary and thus justifies the force as necessary. And the goodness of the process should be obvious by inspection (it is said). Democratic tendencies are, of course, somewhat different. No “rule” is unbreakable (the constitution in its entirety is open to amendment). But underneath that is the hypostatization of the idea that _there must be “some” rule here_ (and these [list of rules] rules are “the best” “by inspection”). After _that_ is asserted the power structure _itself_ is analytic, independent of any particular process, because we are _guaranteed_ a process of some kind. Now the power structure is what _actualizes_ the process (or in fact creates it) (since it can decline to support any process for whatever reason… witness, for example, [I believe the] London Police Chief who mentioned that they would simply not go out of their way to bust people for marijuana use: the process became superfluous). This becomes the definitive notion of “might makes right”, and only an appeal to a moral authority for the creation of the process can rescue this (hence appeals to creators, to naturalism, to “inherent rights”, etc) from its (generally held) immoral nature. * * * * * * The posters on the board do not have an explicit or implicit contract with each other at, say, a dopefest. When friends go out to eat, people work out a payment method usually rather efficiently. The elimination (partially) of social darwinism via welfare (by guaranteeing everyone is socially selected) and other enforced equalities has not crippled decision-making or the workforce. Democracies and republics are not impossible. Distributed decision-making is not impossible (and, in fact, is usually rather efficient). As a matter _of fact_ no centralized _anything_ is required; only when might makes right is elevated to a moral (or otherwise absolute or undeniable) tenet (in means outlined above) does the formalization of a permanent power structure become _necessary_. Which is to say: only _the imposition_ of moral standards require the imposition of force; and, when looked at above, it is seen to say: **force justifies itself, or, force requires no justification**. Without an appeal to a moral authority _the necessity of a formal and permanent power structure is not necessary_. The attempt should then be to examine the class of decision-processes themselves to see what can be done _without_ permanent force. The answer, as I see it, is that _no_ process (except, analytically, those which explicitly assert the requirement of a permanent power structure) _requires_ a permanent and formal power structure. Thus: anarchy is not impossible. ---
**Author:** ![MrO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MrO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrO)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-world-of-anarchy/127171/22 "2002-09-14T02:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **Without an appeal to a moral authority _the necessity of a formal and permanent power structure is not necessary_.** I agree that government isn’t necessary. I suspect it is inevitable, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-world-of-anarchy/127171.md?page=1)