What is to be gained from Anarchy?

Great Debates
21

Anarchy is defined negatively, but that negative could only exist if a positive were present: a functioning system of communication and decision-making structure that would enable a body of people to arrive at group decisions without utilizing a hierarchy of people over other people. (Only the latter part is definitively anarchy, but the preceding part is necessary if it is to exist in any persistent manner).

What is to be gained by having one’s organizations function without a hierarchy of decision-making authority?

An end to stupid perpetual power struggles.

An end to people making decisions for you that you have to put up with.

An end to the tendency for useful perspectives and insights not being taken into account as a result of the people who have them not being in the proper positions of decision-making authority.

An end to the initiative-draining rigidity inherent in conventional structures of authority (the old “you can’t fight city hall” thing).

Or, in more lurid terms, an end to tyranny, oppression, institutionalized coercion. The possibility of standing as an equal among equals, having no boss, no superior officer, no one over you with authority to tell you what you must do.

Also a solution to ossification and long-range inefficiency and low civil & cultural participation.

22

Pure fantasy bullshit.

The theory seems to go that in an anarchist society, there is a perfect balance of power between every individual. Of course, even if we are all armed, this is completely untrue. First of all, who says that you are even armed? It’s not like we are born with a firearm in our hands.

Second, what’s to stop me from simply shooting someone from behind at a 100 yards with a rifle and then taking their stuff? Why should anyone else care what I do if it doesn’t affect them?

Third, do you really want to live in a society where its basically up to each individual to resolve their own conflicts? Don’t assume that each conflict will be resolved to your benefit.

Remember, the same assholes who live in this society will exist in anarchy as well.

Anarchy is freedom but it is the freedom of the strong to dominate the weak.

23

What’s to stop you from doing so right now? Geez, there’s no one sitting on your chest preventing you from doing so or anything!

Assholes, like everyone else, like to get their own way. You can get your own way more efficiently over anything but the very short haul via noncoercive tactics, all other things being equal.

If the strong dominate the weak via coercion (as opposed to charisma or something), that isn’t anarchy, by definition. You’ve got a “Bullyarchy”. Which is what most systems of power over other people devolve into. Look around. We try for a meritocracy in economics and politics alike, but the people who end up in charge mostly tend to be the people who most want to be in charge of things, not the people who necessarily would be the best decision-makers and leaders.

24

And the instant they do, you no longer have anarchy, you have a de facto illegitimate government.

25

So are you suggesting, errata, that in anarchy, somehow the strong will NOT dominate the weak? It’s a natural instinct. We can’t change the basic core of humanity. If I can twist your arm and make you give me your lunch money, and there are no rules to stop me, why not? And anarchy ends there? No wonder it can never be achieved.

26

Humans stratify themselves by nature. We can’t stop doing it, and we can’t use our power of reason to adjust it.

If humans could ever adopt an anarchist society and somehow NOT stratify, then I’d cease calling them “humans”. They’d be a different nature of being.

27

I think it’s probably true that we have a tendency to want to dominate at least some of the time, and that some people have more of an inclination to do so than others. That isn’t an argument for why it would always be necessary for the social structure to be based on and enforced by coercion.

Dominant pushy people would find other means of expressing it in an anarchy. (They’d probably be manipulative schmoozers and speakers and be good at acting like good listeners while really mapping out argument-strategy to make proponents of other views look silly in front of listeners).

We have dominant aggressive people now who do their thing while refraining from whopping their opponents over the head with a club. Donald Trump has not, to my knowledge, physically assaulted even a single one of his adversaries.

Structured power inequities are no more “intrinsic” or “necessary” than a formal class or caste system – either for organizational structure or for power differentials to arise.

But modern pluralistic democracies are more democractic than feudal societies, and although the inexpressive, underintelligent, unimaginative, introverted, or nongregarious folks might not get as much social sway as the slick-tongued, outgoing, clever salespeople/politicians when it comes to obtaining the voluntary cooperation of others (and thereby power, no doubt about it), an anarchy would be more democratic than the systems we use now.

28

I don’t think it’s unchangeable or that’s it’s inherent in humanity. I think sharing and love are equally instinctual and powerful. Are we ready for anarchy? Heck no, but we have to decide that’s what we want before we can get there.

Feudalism was once the order of the day, and democracy was feared as mob rule. It’s simply a matter of making sure your priorities are straight and accepting a slow natural progression.

The progression I see involves increasing levels of human rights along with a strengthening of community bonds. Poverty has to be tackled as well, since violence is endemic to it. These are very realistic and honorable short term goals that are realizable in our lifetimes. They are the sort of goals that most anarchists support and hopefully are working towards.

The best way to limit government power is to eliminate the need for it. If you concentrate on relieving human oppression, whether from the government or other sources, than I think you have a worthwhile goal. If in the end humanity cannot achieve anarchy, I can accept that, as long as we’ve tried and come as close to true liberation as we can. Until we’ve tried, we can’t know for sure.

29

After reading all this, I guess that the only answer is to live alone.

30

But Donald Trump, while not physically assaulting people, does have CONTROL over a lot of people. With his wealth and his power, and with no laws (tax laws, monopoly laws, business law) he could easily amass an even bigger empire where people would clamor to serve him in order to have a bit of his fortune or fame. Wouldn’t that be a form of control and also begin to form a hierarchy?

31

That’s why many anarchists are also socialists. How do people begin to see others as human beings instead of as tools for their gain? I don’t know how convince someone else of that, but I know that people can and do live that way.

Anarchists can align themselves with short term goals that bring about increased liberties and improvements in human welfare. If we can’t have anarchy, we should come as close to it as possible.

32

I am an American, and I too find the ‘arm everyone’ philosophy quite scary myself.

33

Please excuse the horrific use of my native tongue above.

34

So, what we have here is:

Anarchy is always peaceful, because the moment anybody stops being nice, it stops being anarchy!

Uh-huh. Anarchy, like communism and democracy, doesn’t exist in the real world. Why? Because in each place, a governmental heirarchy appears, and away goes the ideal society.

Democracy -> people notice that running a country is a lot of work -> people vote to allocate tasks to those trained at/suited for them -> Republic (if you’re lucky, a socialist republic)

Communism -> people notice that running a country is a lot of work (those resources don’t allocate themselves) -> people choose to do tasks that they are trained at/suited for them -> Socialism (if you’re lucky and nobody’s suited to taking over)

Anarchy -> Armed mobs duke it out for each other’s stuff -> Tyranny (if you get past tribal warfare)

If you have to pick an ideal model to strive for, I wouldn’t think that Anarchy would be the first choice!

Here’s my anarchy scenario:
If I lived in an anarchy, I would find a nice patch of farmable land, use my weapons to scare everyone else off of it who I couldn’t trust, build a wall, and make sure my buds and I keep an eye on things to keep out the chicken-theives. Over time, we would probably adopt a policy of ejecting untrustworthies; we’d probably agree on a set of rules and punishments for lesser crimes. Most likely we’d allocate the management positions to those who want them, and/or the aged ones who don’t have the physical fortitude to do the farming. Later, we eventually might open up guarded trade relations with other clans. Or, maybe we would start sending out raiding parties from our stronghold. If I didn’t do it, my grandson would; preying on the weak would be more rapidly profitable than peace, at least until all of the nearby idealistic anarchists have been slaughtered and their possessions added to my clan’s wealth. After the easy prey was gone, we would be locked into clan warfare for generations (having accidentally taken Jael’s woman, thinking she was unaligned)…

Anarchy is nothing more or less than the rescindment of civilization. I’m thinking that all of you self-proclaimed anarchists are actually wanting some kind of a minimal-government republic where it’s undesirable and perhaps illegal to be a career politician. (But, to avoid your 6-month stint as unpaid transport mantenence manager, you would have to be missing a limb. Hey, somebody’s got to keep the roads paved.)

Reducing government is fine. Removing it entirely is asking for one that you really don’t like.

35

Wow, no hope for democracy even.

That’s because you are envisioning tribal warfare and the beginnings of feudalism instead of anarchy.

I consider it a peak of civilization and a refinement that takes us even further away from angry mobs and brute justice.

I’m envisioning a society based on cooperation mutual trust and respect instead of coercion. Politicians and bureacrats can still exist.

I don’t think most serious anarchists advocate an instant end to government right now. Sure there are plenty of teens our there that are just rebelling against authority, but painting an A on your skateboard doesn’t really make you an anarchist.

An anarchist simply recognizes force as a last resort and wants to reshape society to remove the need for coercive influences.

36

Ok…in your “Anarchy” society, who builds the roads?

Who runs the schools?

Who runs the trains?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are there any consequences if I go and kill or rob someone?

37

I’m not interested in painting the picture of my dreamworld, but in recognizing that coercion is ultimately an unsatifactory solution and working towards finding better ones where I can. (Note also that schools and roadbuilding do not create an obvious need for coercion)The best way to minimize coercion is to minimize the need for it.

If we still need cops and prisons, then that’s the reality we face today, but there’s no reason to be happy with that. There is a great variance between the number of people in prison in the US and other countries. Building more prisons isn’t going to reduce the crime rate. We need to create a society where people create less crime.

Because there is a large variance in crime rates and prison population, I know that societies can create environments that are less conducive to crime without coercion. How far can a society go? I don’t think we know yet.

I think that some level of legitimate government, in order to minimize the exertion of illegitimate coercion, can be acceptable to an anarchist in much the same way that capitalists see the value in public schools. The point is to minimalize the force necessary and only use it when necessary. But if that isn’t your goal, it’s not going to happen.

38

strong bad mode

wait sec

spell_check.exe

no errors

I can’t believe it

Logical+ no spelling errors + make fun of some bitter troll = this a solid post

I’m printing this out to save it for the prosperity

strong bad mode off

anyways think what errata said deserved to be said again

I believe the ideals of anarchy are well described in the story where a man visits two islands one were people are sick and starving (despite plentiful harvests) because their eat utensils are to long (forks, spoon, or chopsticks I’ve heard all three anyways it doesn’t matter) for anyone to feed them selves. On the next island is exactly the same except that people are health and happy, despite the fact the eat utensils are the exact same size; but instead of feeding them selves they feed each other. I always liked that story

39

strong bad mode

wait sec

spell_check.exe

no errors

I can’t believe it

Logical+ no spelling errors + make fun of some bitter troll = this a solid post

I’m printing this out to save it for the prosperity

strong bad mode off

anyways think what errata said deserved to be said again

I believe the ideals of anarchy are well described in the story where a man visits two islands one were people are sick and starving (despite plentiful harvests) because their eat utensils are to long (forks, spoon, or chopsticks I’ve heard all three anyways it doesn’t matter) for anyone to feed them selves. On the next island is exactly the same except that people are health and happy, despite the fact the eat utensils are the exact same size; but instead of feeding them selves they feed each other. I always liked that story

40

Nobody knows if it works. It’s never been tried. I

f it were to be undertaken somewhere, I don’t hesitate to believe for a moment there would be several years of upheaval and groups and people try to figure out some kind of loophole where they can have just a little more power than their status as individuals would warrant, but I’m also certain that would eventually attrit.

Of course at any time there will be people who will have disagreements, even vehement ones, but how better to have to disagreements as individuals that countries.