What is to be gained from Anarchy?

Great Debates
41

Deadly shootouts are probably far less likely when it’s realized that both people are armed. Face it, criminals and others inclined to violence are far more likely to avoid a target that may well shoot back, or even shoot first.

Looting during blackouts would go down for the same reason: If you know for a certainty that the home or business you’re breaking into has one or more armed people inside it, you’re probably not going to give it a try.

I would suggest that the guy who goes bats and starts shooting up his workplace be shot quickly by one of his co-workers. Taht makes a lot more sense to me than making sure everyone in the workplace is unarmed and therefore a guaranteed victim until such time as the “authorities” can get a clear shot or the guy gets bored and offs himself. The comparative body count is much lower.

You can’t eliminate violent insanity, you can limit the numbers of victims.

As to the judges, that’s why I recommend there be a volunteer core. Ideally, both sides would pick three judges from the list. If there’s a match, that’s who hears the case. If not, they pick again but don’t use any of the names from their first attempt.

I don’t want to hijack this thread and turn it into SDMB’s 917 kabillionth gun control debate. Can we just please stipulate that a significant faction of anarcho-capitalists believe in universal armament? The merits and drawbacks of that stance have been argued ad nauseum in other threads, and I’d like to see this one get back to something resembling the OP.

42

There seems to be quite a similarity between the (false, IMO)view that [Atheism leads to rape, murder, theft because unless God is there with his big stick, we could do whatever we wanted] and [Anarchy means chaos because unless the Government is there with its big stick, we could do whatever we wanted].

Personally though, I strongly suspect that some or many elements of government would spontaneously re-emerge through a combination of consensus and necessity.

43

I assumed that you actually thought through your proposal instead of simply declared “Anarchy is good”. The fact is that coercion is a satisfactory solution because people sometimes have to do things they don’t want to do. Whether you coerce using the carrot or the stick, it requires someone with power.

What about the rational guy who decides to come up behind you and shoot you in the head to steal your wallet? What about the guy who decides to rob your house while everyone is off at work? How about the psycho who snipes at random people from his car? There is a certain advantage to having a decidcated police force who’s full time job is to solve and deter crimes.

Adolescent anti-gun control fantasy. Fat middle-aged Mary in Payroll is going to shoot it out with some nut who shows up to work with an assault rifle? Please.

Sorry but that’s not Anarchy anymore. In Anarchy, I am under no obligation to follow a judges mandate or even show up to court.

44

I think FallenAngel is operating under the assumption that human greed and bad people would magically disappear. Or be “dealt with” * “efficiently”*…

And if I and many others (say 49%) dont agree with this core? (or who makes it up?)
I believe that anarchy is an unnatural state in that humans are intrinsically heirachal and social to a degree that small (communities with rules) governments would spontanously form.

Everyone’s packin’ heat in this fantasy world? Aww DAMN thats all you had to say! I’m ready! I have an Bulgarian-made SLR-95 with a 40, 30, and two 5 round magazines, and I have a few scores to settle- in an “efficient way” mind you…

45

What about those of us who don’t care for guns or don’t have it in us to kill another person. What sort of Anarchy is it where everyone is FORCIBLY armed? If I can avoid it I’d like to never handle a gun in my life.

46

“Cloak of Anarchy” by Larry Niven is an interesting short story on this subject.

I think to get a good idea of what anarchy is like, go to an unmoderated bulletin board. Or, if there is such a thing, a bulletin board where everyone is a moderator. In the first case, it probably degenerates into leet speak, spam, and trollery almost immediately.

47

A lame unspecified, non-constructive criticism. Maybe you should have thought that through instead of just simply declaring it.

But it is not always the best solution obviously, and we haven’t explored the limits of how to live without it. As I said, some society’s get along with considerably less coercion than others. Isn’t that a good thing? Why wouldn’t you want it, or want to improve upon it?

48

Much like your entire post. I, as well as others, have pointed out to you (apparently the lone pro-Anarchist) why Anarchy can’t work. We have given examples on why it is not even a undesirable condition. The burden of proof is on you to convince us otherwise and your desire for a coercion free society is not a convincing argument.
Anarchy can’t work because every society has to have rules. Even if those rules are simply “don’t kill each other”. Since no society larger than one person will ever completely agree to what those rules are, it is necessary to create a set of laws that apply to everyone. That way, everyone at least knows what the rules are, even if they don’t agree with them. Once you have a set of laws in place, you need some way to enforce those laws. That’s what the police are for.

Not only that, any society of any size needs some sort of cetralized control of things like roads and other public works. You can’t just have everyone and his brother building a dam or a highway wherever it’s convenient.

49

You haven’t “pointed out” anything. You’ve made assertions that you seem to think are self-explanatory and compelling in and of themselves. (They aren’t).

To me (and probably to errata) you sound kind of like this:

[18th Century]***

Now Mangetout, I think, is on a path that perhaps you can follow:

If you’re nodding to that tune, consider that maybe “some or many elements of government” could be provided by organizational structures that AREN’T hierarchies of people over other people, but which address these concerns nonetheless. If you are intending on arguing that no such structure can exist, please be explicit about them.

But saying “Anarchy can’t work, because anarchy can’t work, see? Therefore anarchy can’t work!” does not a valid argument make.

50

To clarify my own position in response to yours (**msmith537
**):

Agreed. But I have no problems envisioning a decision-making structure from which rules emerge. Rules where everyone knows what they are, and which apply to everyone. Without having to have a hierarchy of people over other people.

No you don’t. The same communications structure that generated the rules can generate responses to their violation – which may take the form of tradition or may be highly individuated to each occurrence, who knows? – but again without resorting to a structure putting some people above others in a ranked hierarchy.

51

But you haven’t explained why cooperation is a bad thing and why we shouldn’t increase it.

You have failed to specifically address my points or answer my questions. Your not participating in a debate, your just stating your opinion over and over.

I think there’s a typo here because you seem to be saying, it’s my burden of proof to show that anarchy is undesirable. ???

Anyway, there’s no proof that you want anarchy, you either want it or you don’t. I’ve simply been trying to explain my views and point out that the instant collapse of government leading to proto-feudalism is not anarchy.

Even you hold this to be true, that’s not a reason to not look for ways to cooperate and minimize the need for force. Like I’ve said:anarchist can accept some minimal level of legitimate coercion in order to minimize illegitimate coercion in much the same way that capitalist support public schools. You keep on attacking the same strawman with no recognition of things I’ve said more than once.

52

No he is not the only pro anarchist

Errata has said again and again that Anarchist are not against organization; But that the goals of Anarchist are to create the society that NEEDS GOVERNING THE LEAST. The ideal would be a world the dose NOT NEED and governing body.

I would like to say that this ideal couldn’t be achieved if the government was abolished tomorrow. The goals of contempary Anarchist philosophy are to make changes in society to lessen the need for government. This cannot be accomplished simple by abolishing our government institutions (which as of now we do need). These changes must be made in many aspects of our lives not just in government.

Do not make the mistake of confusing Anarchy and Chaos. Not only in Anarchy do people live with out government, but also there would no form of oppression or fear. Keep in mind the at the hart of Anarchist philosophy is that people are good, and can that we can live in a way where there is NO NEED for government.

Now is possible to live with out government? In the modern industrial civilization we live it is very likely we cannot live with out government; even if we cannot achieve a goal dose not mean that it is not worthy of pursuit.

53

Do you agree with the theory of universal armament errata? Lear’s Fool? I don’t see how a world where everyone is armed can also be a world FREE of opression or fear.

54

in a ture anrachy you wouldn’t need a wepone

55

I’d say we’re pretty close to universal armament in the US at the moment, and it doesn’t seem to be helping any.
I think we need to address why we have so many violent sociopaths that make us fearful to begin with.

56

So you disagree with Fallen Angel, who on the first page of the thread said that “most” anarchists agree in universal armament.

I, for one, would be in great danger, because I wouldn’t own or fire a gun for all the tea in China…they frighten me, so where does that leave me in a world where EVERYONE ELSE has a gun?

57

But in a “true” anarchy, nothing would prevent you from having a weapon, either.

What, precisely, is a “true” anarchy? Presumably it’s a society without “rules”. But we’re quickly going to get into a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, I suspect, when we try to define any of this in practical terms. Humanity is predisposed to rules, if only because we don’t want other people to kill us for no good reason.

Other thoughts in general…

We must be careful not to deceive ourselves and be too optimistic about humanity, as was Rousseau, nor be too pessimistic, as was Hobbes. Not everyone acts out of pure Randian self-interest, but not everyone is Mother Teresa, either. Any system of government worthy of consideration must in some way regulate the people’s excesses while at the same time promoting their progresses. In the context of the OP, “what is to be gained,” I think we must inevitably answer that “true” anarchy is the equivalent to chaos–and that there is much more to lose than there is to be gained by it.

To be fair, that does not mean that no “moderate” anarchic principles have any value, nor should we simply dismiss them out of hand. (Thanks to errata for being a fine example.) Typically, however, anarchy is decidedly not a moderate position and difficult to take seriously. One has visions of semi-organized tribal warfare as invididuals band together in order to ward off other, more aggressive bands who, unobliged by rule of law, take the opportunity to prey on others. The concept of “arm everyone” reminds one of examples of the 19th Century American West, when, instead of skill with fists or clubs or bows, skill with a gun became the great unequalizer. If we are to propose a less coercive system, it presupposes we must first reduce the coercive nature of society as a whole. To me, it seems horribly premature to substantially reduce the level of government force without the existence of a parallel reduction in random force between individuals acting independently.

You can’t create a paradise if it remains inhabited with persistent demons.

Exactly. Now, it certainly is possible (indeed almost guaranteed) that the way government applies force in particular could produce these sociopaths. And there, I think, is a realistic place to start–prison reform, educational reform, judicial reform, etc. The irony is that we may actually need more government before we can produce a society that needs less government.

58

IMO, as long as we live in a society with a gun fetish, we will live in a society with lots of prisons and an omnipresent fear of each other. This society will never approach anarchy.

OTOH, there are many people, like yourself, who have every right to own a gun but choose not to. There are many reasons why you chose not to. Among them I’m guessing: 1. You’ve lived primarily in safe neighborhoods where you don’t need to own a gun, 2. You find the idea of using lethal force abhorrent and against your nature, 3. You don’t participate in illegal activities that won’t allow the involvement of police,4. John Wayne wasn’t one of your role models.

1 & 3 show a strong correlation with poverty and the “War on Drugs” that makes the black market financially lucrative. I suspect that 2 is also related to poverty and a secure well bonded family, but the evidence is scantier. 4, well that’s just our culture, but we’re not bound to that ad infinitum.

Primarily, I think the violence in our culture is larglely solveable, if we begin to treat the disease instead of the symptoms so to speak. There will still be few nutballs even in a closely knit loving community. However, if they are spotted earlier in life they can dealt with by a much smaller less intrusive form of coercion that might actually be able to help rehabilitate people instead of just locking them away.

59

I think anarchic philosophy is hard to typify. It’s much like the beginnnings of psychology, we don’t have a whole lot of experimental data to go on and we have a lot of competing schools of thought.

That’s why I’m a gradualist and propose approaching anarchy as closely as we can before we make any decisions on it’s acheivability. I honestly believe we don’t know yet what humans are capable of in the long run.

I’m a gradualist, so I’ll agree with you on that point.

I disagree. We need to stop looking to the government to solve our problems. I don’t think government services we have should be removed yet (like a typical Libertarian). We should however, begin to hold the government more accountable and increase it’s legitimacy. We should strengthen individual rights, increase direct democracy, introduce democratic reforms that encourage mulitpartisanship, and decrease federal power over states.

Simultaneously, we need to start building communities and developing ways of interacting with each other that encourage equality, cooperation and economic self-sufficiency. This work is already being done. Cooperatives are a great start. There are also many civic groups that has been in existence for quite some time that provide excellent examples of community building.

The progression I see is communities being given more and more power at the expense of larger, less representative governments as long as they don’t violate individual rights (this would preclude the re-enactment of Jim Crow laws in the South for example). Then the increasing power of communities would in turn give more power to individuals who have more of a say in what happens in their community.

Anarchy by definition is not a form of government. To me it is a philosophy that should guide our application of government and interactions with people so that we can approach the highest attainable state of liberation and freedom. The end goal of no goverment is kind of like a geometric definition: we don’t see physical manifestations of straight lines, but we can use the ideas of geometry to bring us as close to that as possible.