Is government a necessary entity? Why or why not? In other words- can anarchism work?
As far as I’m concerned, the only purpose of a state is to maintain the roads and support a military defense.
What about protecting the civil populace and administering justice? Or could they be handled by ‘the people’ or some other form?
You’re going to live in a state regardless of what your wishes are on the subject. If you refuse to run your own state, some other state will move in and take over. Even if you eliminated every government on Earth, new ones would be formed and start exercising their power over others. So if government is inevitable, it behooves people to ensure they maintain control over the one they’ve got and try to make it a good one. Your only choice is whether you’ll be a citizen or a subject.
Little Nemo (and I love the nick, btw–my Daddy grew up reading that comic!), you’re taking the pragmatic view–which I must admit is my own–but the OP was the theoretical view: can anarchism work?
Daoleth, I believe the populace could protect itself, and our justice system originated with the selection of twelve of the accused peers to determine his guilt or innocence.
Anarchism can’t work. It can’t even exist for any length of time. As soon as a group of people get together and establish a few rules for interaction, its not anarchy anymore.
I think that the original question implies we have a choice.
Doesn’t human social behaviour determine this aspect of life for us?
I mean tribal rule seems to be the default human behaviour given a wild environment. Somewhere along the line this seemed to change to national rule… Perhaps a more learned person could fill in this small gap?
It seems to me that the non-statist political philosophies (anarchism and libertarianism) are predicated on the idea that no central decision-making body is ultimately necessary, because everybody affected by a particular course of action can get together and decide amongst themselves how to handle it.
Personally, I don’t think this is tenable. Human relationships are too complex, and we can’t work out all the possible consequences of our actions, so any non-statist system will change into groups of people who act in their own interests and ignore the interests of others - with the probable consequence of conflict and ultimate collapse. Ultimately, we need an overall authority which can weigh competing interests and act in the best interests of everybody. Our problem, in society, is how to get that authority to be accountable, just, and effective.
So, my answer to the OP is “Yes”.
But if you have a rule which requires (a) the community or (b) the accused (or both) to accept the verdict of the jury, then the justice system has become part of the state.
>> Is the state a necessity?
Even Bakunin describes the state as “a historically necessary evil” (my emphasis).
I’d simply add that, in my view, it’s currently (as well as historically) necessary, and it’s not necessarily evil.
There are too many people in the world, and they interrelate and interdepend in too many complex ways, for us all to be able to live life on our own terms. Like it or not, to be human is to be involved with other human beings.
And, if we’re trading Great Thoughts by Great Thinkers, I give you John Donne.
I guess it I felt it was implied that if it couldn’t even exist, then it wouldn’t work.
And how old is your father? The Little Nemo strip stopped back around 1920.
Daddy died in 1982 at the age of 71; he was born in 1911 and was 50 when I was born.
Suppose you and eleven strangers are playing the following game:
Each of you will write a check to me for any value and anonymously put it into a hat on the table. I will total up the value of the checks and write each of you a check for the total divided by six.
In short the collective doubles the money it puts in. But the best strategy for any individual is to put in no money, and let the others carry the weight.
This is essentially the problem that government solves. There is an inherant advantage for a state to act as a single entity in many situations, most notibly warfare and negotiation. This collective action is funded by taxation. But without enforcement, the individual strategy dominates and tax income dwindles.
So anarchy in the sense of no centralized action is worthless, and leads to outside (government) powers assuming control.
But anarchy in the sense of no enforced taxation would be possible, but only if the population was sufficiently enlightened to voluntarily pay taxes. So in other words, we need government.