marharth Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have been reading this topic but now I am seriously confused. Its not chaotic anarchy? What? Anarchy is a system without a enforced government. How can that not be chaotic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have been reading this topic but now I am seriously confused. Its not chaotic anarchy? What? Anarchy is a system without a enforced government. How can that not be chaotic? Its a difference between the total collapse of all order and civilization as we know it (ie, chaotic anarchy) and a system of government that relies on voluntary action and the general absence of coercion (outside of the justice of the system, which is a necessary evil considering humans will never ever be so perfect as to eliminate crime) ala anarchism, or organized anarchy, or simply anarchy. Its easy to get confused when the two very different concepts share a name. Another thing that will help you understand is that a government is not a state, even though a state is a government. States make up the entirety of the world governments, outside of micro nations (like Freetown Christiania), and anarchy (referring to anarchism, just to be clear) is a system that would hope to challenge that monopoly, by introducing a different method of governing other than via coercion and limits on personal freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have been reading this topic but now I am seriously confused. Its not chaotic anarchy? What? Anarchy is a system without a enforced government. How can that not be chaotic? Its a difference between the total collapse of all order and civilization as we know it (ie, chaotic anarchy) and a system of government that relies on voluntary action and the general absence of coercion (outside of the justice of the system, which is a necessary evil considering humans will never ever be so perfect as to eliminate crime) ala anarchism, or organized anarchy, or simply anarchy. Its easy to get confused when the two very different concepts share a name. Another thing that will help you understand is that a government is not a state, even though a state is a government. States make up the entirety of the world governments, outside of micro nations (like Freetown Christiania), and anarchy (referring to anarchism, just to be clear) is a system that would hope to challenge that monopoly, by introducing a different method of governing other than via coercion and limits on personal freedom.How is a government supposed to run without coercion? You have to fund the government somehow and I can tell you right now that people won't willing pay taxes if they don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferodaktyl Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 it seems to me that this kind of anarchic society was only implemented in fiction writings, and only with a limited degree of success even there ( one good example would be The World of Non-A, by van Vogt). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have been reading this topic but now I am seriously confused. Its not chaotic anarchy? What? Anarchy is a system without a enforced government. How can that not be chaotic? Its a difference between the total collapse of all order and civilization as we know it (ie, chaotic anarchy) and a system of government that relies on voluntary action and the general absence of coercion (outside of the justice of the system, which is a necessary evil considering humans will never ever be so perfect as to eliminate crime) ala anarchism, or organized anarchy, or simply anarchy. Its easy to get confused when the two very different concepts share a name. Another thing that will help you understand is that a government is not a state, even though a state is a government. States make up the entirety of the world governments, outside of micro nations (like Freetown Christiania), and anarchy (referring to anarchism, just to be clear) is a system that would hope to challenge that monopoly, by introducing a different method of governing other than via coercion and limits on personal freedom.How is a government supposed to run without coercion? You have to fund the government somehow and I can tell you right now that people won't willing pay taxes if they don't have to. Funds are gained through voluntary donation. If nothing is donated, then the government can't do its job, and the people within that society would understand that. You would be donating on the assumption that you'd be relying on what the government would then provide. If you don't, then you're working on the assumption that you have no need of what they would provide. However if no one donates that doesn't mean that society will fall apart. Voluntary action is still the basis of this anarchy so combined with a gift economy government would largely become redundant internally. Externally is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I have been reading this topic but now I am seriously confused. Its not chaotic anarchy? What? Anarchy is a system without a enforced government. How can that not be chaotic? Its a difference between the total collapse of all order and civilization as we know it (ie, chaotic anarchy) and a system of government that relies on voluntary action and the general absence of coercion (outside of the justice of the system, which is a necessary evil considering humans will never ever be so perfect as to eliminate crime) ala anarchism, or organized anarchy, or simply anarchy. Its easy to get confused when the two very different concepts share a name. Another thing that will help you understand is that a government is not a state, even though a state is a government. States make up the entirety of the world governments, outside of micro nations (like Freetown Christiania), and anarchy (referring to anarchism, just to be clear) is a system that would hope to challenge that monopoly, by introducing a different method of governing other than via coercion and limits on personal freedom.How is a government supposed to run without coercion? You have to fund the government somehow and I can tell you right now that people won't willing pay taxes if they don't have to. Funds are gained through voluntary donation. If nothing is donated, then the government can't do its job, and the people within that society would understand that. You would be donating on the assumption that you'd be relying on what the government would then provide. If you don't, then you're working on the assumption that you have no need of what they would provide. However if no one donates that doesn't mean that society will fall apart. Voluntary action is still the basis of this anarchy so combined with a gift economy government would largely become redundant internally. Externally is a different issue.So you think people are actually smart enough to realize they have to fund their government? Humanity is not even close to ready for something like that. Why would someone who can deal with things themselves pay taxes for a service they do not require? People who require government assistance are not doing particularly well, I doubt they would be able to fund the government either. So if you have people who don't need the services of the government, and people who do need the services but can't afford it, who is the one funding the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Funds are gained through voluntary donation. If nothing is donated, then the government can't do its job, and the people within that society would understand that.Um, look at California. Its residents have voted down every tax increase put on the ballot. Now the state is starting to shut down its libraries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 So you think people are actually smart enough to realize they have to fund their government? Humanity is not even close to ready for something like that. Why would someone who can deal with things themselves pay taxes for a service they do not require? People who require government assistance are not doing particularly well, I doubt they would be able to fund the government either. So if you have people who don't need the services of the government, and people who do need the services but can't afford it, who is the one funding the government? Why oh why do people constantly insist that I'm suggesting this system is feasible for all of humanity? For all of the US population even? I've said it multiple times. Anarchy isn't for everyone, nor is it meant for everyone. Why would someone who can deal with things themselves pay taxes for a service they do not require? People who require government assistance are not doing particularly well, I doubt they would be able to fund the government either. Read the topic please. There is no such thing as people who can't help themselves or find the help they would need in this system, government or not. Resources are freely given and taken. And that goes for much everything. Whether its necessities, education, or what have you. The government is not going to be there to hold anyone's hand because it doesn't have to. And not to mention that government in anarchy would still be largely redundant either way and would only be there to run external matters like foreign affairs, borders, etc etc. Internal matters (except may be the justice system, which depending on how the government is set up can either be a part of government or entirely separate) would not be its responsibility as the people themselves would already be taking care of it. The only truly helpless (that will stay that way for any period of time) will be those who physically cannot take care of themselves for whatever reason. (disabled, mentally handicapped, etc etc) And those people would already be taken care of by their families or people who would be willing to watch over them. Anarchists (real ones anyway, not college anarchists) are not heartless, and in fact quite the opposite. Um, look at California. Its residents have voted down every tax increase put on the ballot. Now the state is starting to shut down its libraries. And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Who is anarchy for then? You are obviously talking about a large scale government since you mentioned foreign policy. Your system would appear to include quite a few people. You seriously think there is no such thing as a person who can not get help? You really think everyone has a family or friend to watch over them? To get this clear let me ask the following. 1. How big is the ideal population for your system? 2. How are people supposed to get resources without government funding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Who is anarchy for then? You are obviously talking about a large scale government since you mentioned foreign policy. Anarchists. Is that not obvious? And foreign policy doesn't indicate large scale government. You seriously think there is no such thing as a person who can not get help? You really think everyone has a family or friend to watch over them? Yes, in anarchy. 1. How big is the ideal population for your system? If we want to absolutely cement long-term stability? Between 1000 and 5000. If we want long-term stability but don't necessarily need to force it? Probably it will grow to around 200,000. If we aren't that concerned about long-term stability, it can be as large as it wants too presuming it grows to that point and adapts its systems to handle larger scale populations. A system similar to the States system in the US is an alright idea for that. 2. How are people supposed to get resources without government funding? If this isn't obvious to you then I don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts