Can anarchy survive on a large scale?

[HeyYou]

Think I have seen this flavor of thread before, but, here goes anyway.... :D

 

No. It can't. Human nature won't allow it. There MUST be someone 'in charge', else, things go to hades in a handbasket. No major infrastructure, no collective organizations for the public safety, (fire, police) and no central authority to deter crime. Granted, if everyone has a gun...... that would be somewhat of a deterrent, but, I don't think significant enough. And that's just internal issues. When you start dealing with the rest of the world, doing so on an individual basis would be a major nightmare.

 

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0H2rSJayL_c

 

Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital.

 

Saying the state is REQUIRED to do all of these things is not only juvenile but simply laughable. Aside from the moral reasons in opposition to the state, the economic arguments are quite basic. The state is incapable of calculating the opportunity costs of production and has no way of calculating, economically, where the most efficient use of resources should be directed. Both of these problems result in an extremely high level of inefficiency in providing even the most basic of services.

 

Look up the Icelandic Commonwealth (Medieval Iceland). This "significantly sized" group as you put had private defense agencies instead of a monopoly police force as well as what is now referred to as private law or private dispute resolution. A very good read from David Friedman: http://www.daviddfri...nd/Iceland.html

 

If you want to resort to insults, you can be added to my ignore list with a few quick clicks. Also, running off a line of feces is not an argument. None of what you discuss there matters one whit to the state, or the people. The people want roads to drive on. Individually, they are going to be unable to build the infrastructure required for such a project. convincing enough folks that it is a 'good idea' is one thing, getting the to do, let alone PAY FOR IT, is an entirely separate issue.

 

Also, your argument falls flat in the face of american history. The US government started the interstate system to ENCOURAGE commerce, and make it easier to transport goods around the country. They KNEW it would be a boon to the economy, both in the jobs created by the projects themselves, and the commerce they enabled.

 

 

Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital.

No problem, I can give you five off the top of my head: Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia.

 

I'll even describe one for you:

Croatia is built like that, 4.5 million people who live on a private property of foreign companies. Politicians do nothing but bark at each other and they have no real power since everything inside the border is owned by someone else, even the border.

 

All of our road repairs and road/bridge constructions are funded and controlled by German private companies and are built without any consent from the government (our highways don't even have a building license but they are still built and used), same goes for the fire department. Hospitals are funded and controlled by Pliva, who is in turn controlled by US and German pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Bayer. Police force is controlled my the Ministry of Internal Affairs which does nothing if NATO doesn't request it, it's funded by US and is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/rolleyes.gif

 

Hotels - foreign, clinics - foreign, hospitals - foreign, police - foreign, sea - foreign, land - foreign, electrical company - foreign, phone companies - foreign, water company - foreign, roads - foreign, oil company - foreign, military - foreign, government - exists but politicians do nothing whatsoever but sit on their arse and get payed for doing nothing.

 

Nothing in Croatia is owned by it's government and they don't help anyone but themselves. Also, half the government is in prison for theft, bribery, smuggling, murder, extortion, racketeering, war profiteering, threatening, etc. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

 

The same situation is in the other four countries I mentioned, they just have a different name.

So you see, you don't need a government for the state to function. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif

 

No, you need foreign governments, and private companies operating at the behest of same.... How is that in any way considered "Anarchy"?

 

That's fine, I'd rather not listen to an irrational statist who has yet to present any evidence of their position in a thoughtful and logical fashion. Line of feces? My undergraduate field of study is in economics, a field in which you clearly do not understand. If rational arguments presented with references offend you, that's fine, I've noticed in my line of work statists are very wary of economics in relation to the state. You've demonstrated you are unwilling to even investigate the material I've presented.

 

Would you to provide any references for your incorrect statements? You've got a tough academic career ahead of you it sounds like kid.

 

Another good article to investigate is a great book or entry on Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Although, I highly doubt you will investigate this wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia....ate,_and_Utopia

 

Kid? *snicker* I haven't been a kid for quite some time. I also have found that those that think they know more, because they are "educated"...... are those that are least likely to actually understand the human aspect of the problem. I have also found, in my own education, that what they teach, and what actually happens in the real world, are two entirely different things. (Yes, I have funny little letters after my name too. Doesn't mean diddly squat.)

 

One question though, when has "not understanding the implications/impact of an action" EVER stopped a government from doing something? When has actually understanding the cost/benefits of an action EVER caused a group of individualists to DO something???

 

Ponder that one for a while. For me, I don't really feel like "debating" with the "I be edumacated, therefore, I am smarter than you" types.

 

I'm out. Have fun guys.

[sukeban]

Definitely the term "anarchy" is a loaded monicker, as Vagrant noted. To me, it conjures images of really lame teenagers with those Circle-A patches on brand-new pleather jackets, but that's just cause people like that have really rubbed me the wrong way. It would be nice if perhaps anarchists (intellectuals, not teenagers) picked perhaps a new name for themselves so that they could have discussions with a broader audience without automatically incurring the cognitive killswitch that the term "anarchy" usually throws.

 

Also, even though I get what you mean, using terms like "statist" comes across as inherently standoffish rather than descriptive; it also strikes me of a throwback (not really in a positive way) to sometime like 1968 or even 1848. Point simply being that word choice is a mine-field, especially when people have conditioned reactions to them. One might be using terms like that to intentionally irk those in opposition to their point, but if that's not the intention then probably a different term would receive a more positive reaction.

 

~~

 

@Topic

 

Anyway, anarchy, I confess, is never something that I paid much attention to, as I always viewed it as sort of an irrelevant "ship has sailed" type of boutique political philosophy not really applicable to our time. Maybe back in the 1800s it might have had a chance in Europe, but in the present day--barring some sort of holocaust that turns the clock back to zero--I don't think it has much hope. I think you'd either need a) essentially "innocent" people (tribes with no technology and no real concern apart from wilderness survival) or b) an assemblage of dedicated true-believers. I don't think (entirely opinion) that run-of-the-mill folks would adapt well to that now, especially coming from a worldview that has always known and accepted the presence of a state.

 

Beyond that, I don't really know how you--apart from religion--restrict the ability of the law enforcers/soldiers from simply establishing themselves at the top, as they are--assuming that everyone is doing what they're "best" at as a specialization--the most physically powerful and militarily skilled of the group. Maybe you have one "good egg" (or several) who stay within the confines of their role, but all it would take would be one "bad/ambitious egg" and the entire thing could dissolve into despotism. Perhaps if everyone was an Amazon or something and equally skilled at warfare (kinda like what HeyYou said), they could collectively prevent this from happening, but if one group had the sticks and the other group had the baskets, the guys with the sticks would win every time.

 

So I dunno. Anarchy would probably also require a FAR higher sense of "community" than is found in modern society, especially the United States. You would have to know your neighbor and trust him, rather than never interact with him and then impute the worst motivations to him like we do now. That would lead to demonization and to despotism guaranteed without the intervention that we in the West call laws and the state. So--how do you square that circle: create a vibrant sense of community in a massive grouping of people that increasingly interacts only through media mediation? Again, that ship has probably already sailed, which is why I am not bullish on the concept.

[Passb]

Think I have seen this flavor of thread before, but, here goes anyway.... :D

 

No. It can't. Human nature won't allow it. There MUST be someone 'in charge', else, things go to hades in a handbasket. No major infrastructure, no collective organizations for the public safety, (fire, police) and no central authority to deter crime. Granted, if everyone has a gun...... that would be somewhat of a deterrent, but, I don't think significant enough. And that's just internal issues. When you start dealing with the rest of the world, doing so on an individual basis would be a major nightmare.

 

Your argument is full of fallacious assumptions about the necessity of a state. You are assuming without the state that particular and arbitrary things won't get accomplished. This was the same argument they made in defense of slavery by stating "without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" except now many statists bellow "without the government, who will build the roads?". As Murray Rothbard once said, the statist confuses the necessity of SOCIETY with the necessity of the STATE. I'd recommend watching this:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0H2rSJayL_c

 

Is it? Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital.

 

Saying the state is REQUIRED to do all of these things is not only juvenile but simply laughable. Aside from the moral reasons in opposition to the state, the economic arguments are quite basic. The state is incapable of calculating the opportunity costs of production and has no way of calculating, economically, where the most efficient use of resources should be directed. Both of these problems result in an extremely high level of inefficiency in providing even the most basic of services.

 

Look up the Icelandic Commonwealth (Medieval Iceland). This "significantly sized" group as you put had private defense agencies instead of a monopoly police force as well as what is now referred to as private law or private dispute resolution. A very good read from David Friedman: http://www.daviddfri...nd/Iceland.html

 

If you want to resort to insults, you can be added to my ignore list with a few quick clicks. Also, running off a line of feces is not an argument. None of what you discuss there matters one whit to the state, or the people. The people want roads to drive on. Individually, they are going to be unable to build the infrastructure required for such a project. convincing enough folks that it is a 'good idea' is one thing, getting the to do, let alone PAY FOR IT, is an entirely separate issue.

 

Also, your argument falls flat in the face of american history. The US government started the interstate system to ENCOURAGE commerce, and make it easier to transport goods around the country. They KNEW it would be a boon to the economy, both in the jobs created by the projects themselves, and the commerce they enabled.

 

 

Show me ONE significantly sized group of people that without help of a government, constructed roads, bridges, a police force, fire department, or even a friggin hospital.

No problem, I can give you five off the top of my head: Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia.

 

I'll even describe one for you:

Croatia is built like that, 4.5 million people who live on a private property of foreign companies. Politicians do nothing but bark at each other and they have no real power since everything inside the border is owned by someone else, even the border.

 

All of our road repairs and road/bridge constructions are funded and controlled by German private companies and are built without any consent from the government (our highways don't even have a building license but they are still built and used), same goes for the fire department. Hospitals are funded and controlled by Pliva, who is in turn controlled by US and German pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Bayer. Police force is controlled my the Ministry of Internal Affairs which does nothing if NATO doesn't request it, it's funded by US and is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/rolleyes.gif

 

Hotels - foreign, clinics - foreign, hospitals - foreign, police - foreign, sea - foreign, land - foreign, electrical company - foreign, phone companies - foreign, water company - foreign, roads - foreign, oil company - foreign, military - foreign, government - exists but politicians do nothing whatsoever but sit on their arse and get payed for doing nothing.

 

Nothing in Croatia is owned by it's government and they don't help anyone but themselves. Also, half the government is in prison for theft, bribery, smuggling, murder, extortion, racketeering, war profiteering, threatening, etc. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif

 

The same situation is in the other four countries I mentioned, they just have a different name.

So you see, you don't need a government for the state to function. http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif

 

No, you need foreign governments, and private companies operating at the behest of same.... How is that in any way considered "Anarchy"?

 

That's fine, I'd rather not listen to an irrational statist who has yet to present any evidence of their position in a thoughtful and logical fashion. Line of feces? My undergraduate field of study is in economics, a field in which you clearly do not understand. If rational arguments presented with references offend you, that's fine, I've noticed in my line of work statists are very wary of economics in relation to the state. You've demonstrated you are unwilling to even investigate the material I've presented.

 

Would you to provide any references for your incorrect statements? You've got a tough academic career ahead of you it sounds like kid.

 

Another good article to investigate is a great book or entry on Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia". Although, I highly doubt you will investigate this wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia....ate,_and_Utopia

 

Kid? *snicker* I haven't been a kid for quite some time. I also have found that those that think they know more, because they are "educated"...... are those that are least likely to actually understand the human aspect of the problem. I have also found, in my own education, that what they teach, and what actually happens in the real world, are two entirely different things. (Yes, I have funny little letters after my name too. Doesn't mean diddly squat.)

 

One question though, when has "not understanding the implications/impact of an action" EVER stopped a government from doing something? When has actually understanding the cost/benefits of an action EVER caused a group of individualists to DO something???

 

Ponder that one for a while. For me, I don't really feel like "debating" with the "I be edumacated, therefore, I am smarter than you" types.

 

I'm out. Have fun guys.

 

 

Would have fooled me, you failed to offer any evidence for any of the positions you claimed. Nice attempt at arguing.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Passb

[Vagrant0]

Here's the thing, government didn't just up and happen because someone read it in a book and liked the idea. Nor has leadership always been the product of militaristic oppression. Quite a number of countries and governments grew from an intimate relationship of service between the community and those who lead that community. Many of the first kings and chieftains were created not by birthright, or force, but by being individuals who possessed the charisma, wisdom, or capability to be a true leader. This aspect of "being most fit to rule" is one of the primary notions that led to the idea of a democracy. The problem is that for any system, the longer that system exists, the more likely individuals within that system will use it to their own advantage. In the case of Anarchy, this could be anything from exploitation of labor, falsifying expertise or credentials (someone with little medical training claiming to be a doctor just so that they can rape and butcher however they please), or using armed groups to take everything they want, building their own power base, enforcing their own form of law, or a multitude of other things simply because there is no oversight to prevent them. Although these things still exist within most government systems, the capability for these individuals to continue their actions is usually reduced or carries severe risks.

 

The actual debate here, with anarchy, and most of these political debates, is a somewhat different matter. and deals more with differences in opinion about what the role of government should even be, and to what extent. And that is a very complicated matter since some people want the government to provide some services, but not others, or just don't want to pay for the services they get, or don't want others to get the services they pay for, or just wants nothing to do with it. Then there is the matter of who decides budgeting or distribution for those services, how those services would be funded, and by who, what restrictions need to be put in place at the individual level (just how many kids do you have to pop out before you stop getting government assistance), and who acts as an oversight body for those who makes those decisions. Then there are the matters of local rule, education, propaganda (so that those in power can't be overthrown by any random idiot that suddenly thinks that they could do better or just live like a king), military strength against other countries, diplomacy towards those inside and outside the domain, and other matters related to solidifying/maintaining power. Unfortunately many of these things need to exist simply by nature of being a state, and in dealing with other states or parties outside.

 

As with most things in life, it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have all those other people to deal with. Which is, to say, the problem with Anarchy... dealing with all those other people.

[WarRatsG]

Definitely the term "anarchy" is a loaded monicker, as Vagrant noted. To me, it conjures images of really lame teenagers with those Circle-A patches on brand-new pleather jackets, but that's just cause people like that have really rubbed me the wrong way. It would be nice if perhaps anarchists (intellectuals, not teenagers) picked perhaps a new name for themselves so that they could have discussions with a broader audience without automatically incurring the cognitive killswitch that the term "anarchy" usually throws.

 

Also, even though I get what you mean, using terms like "statist" comes across as inherently standoffish rather than descriptive; it also strikes me of a throwback (not really in a positive way) to sometime like 1968 or even 1848. Point simply being that word choice is a mine-field, especially when people have conditioned reactions to them. One might be using terms like that to intentionally irk those in opposition to their point, but if that's not the intention then probably a different term would receive a more positive reaction.

 

Many anarchists would say that those connotations were engineered by a scared government trying to turn people away from the truth - I'm not one of those people, but I do still think that anarchists are not all violent and naive. On the contrary, anarchist activists are generally peaceful as far as I am aware. Violence tends to cling to many political movements that were intended to be peaceful, for example the suffragists and suffragettes in early 1900s (in the end violence didn't help them much, it was the women's contributions to the war effort that gave them the vote).

 

 

Anyway, anarchy, I confess, is never something that I paid much attention to, as I always viewed it as sort of an irrelevant "ship has sailed" type of boutique political philosophy not really applicable to our time. Maybe back in the 1800s it might have had a chance in Europe, but in the present day--barring some sort of holocaust that turns the clock back to zero--I don't think it has much hope. I think you'd either need a) essentially "innocent" people (tribes with no technology and no real concern apart from wilderness survival) or b) an assemblage of dedicated true-believers. I don't think (entirely opinion) that run-of-the-mill folks would adapt well to that now, especially coming from a worldview that has always known and accepted the presence of a state.

 

Beyond that, I don't really know how you--apart from religion--restrict the ability of the law enforcers/soldiers from simply establishing themselves at the top, as they are--assuming that everyone is doing what they're "best" at as a specialization--the most physically powerful and militarily skilled of the group. Maybe you have one "good egg" (or several) who stay within the confines of their role, but all it would take would be one "bad/ambitious egg" and the entire thing could dissolve into despotism. Perhaps if everyone was an Amazon or something and equally skilled at warfare (kinda like what HeyYou said), they could collectively prevent this from happening, but if one group had the sticks and the other group had the baskets, the guys with the sticks would win every time.

 

So I dunno. Anarchy would probably also require a FAR higher sense of "community" than is found in modern society, especially the United States. You would have to know your neighbor and trust him, rather than never interact with him and then impute the worst motivations to him like we do now. That would lead to demonization and to despotism guaranteed without the intervention that we in the West call laws and the state. So--how do you square that circle: create a vibrant sense of community in a massive grouping of people that increasingly interacts only through media mediation? Again, that ship has probably already sailed, which is why I am not bullish on the concept.

 

It is my opinions that if governments simply disappeared, states would just turn into fragments. Instead of having a population of several million, communities over maybe a few thousand at most would spring up. Communities in close proximity could form a kind of federation, where each one is completely independent but can access the services of the other and work together should the need arise. Entire armies would be unnecessary for this kind of population. If a kind of military coup did take place then everyone could probably leave, and the other members of the federation would not have to worry anyway - any attempts to invade or spread their influence could be put down with a collective volunteer force.

 

Interactions through media are meaningless to the community as a whole - you can pick and choose your friends online, but you cannot choose who you have to rely on. Since everyone must work together for a community to operate efficiently - ie "can't kill her, she's our only physics teacher" - then everyone will depend on each other and therefore anyone who contributes to the community will be held in high regard, because everyone benefits due to their efforts. Likewise, someone who contributes nothing will receive nothing. It is this mutual dependency that could create stronger bonds within a community.

[Vagrant0]

Since everyone must work together for a community to operate efficiently - ie "can't kill her, she's our only physics teacher" - then everyone will depend on each other and therefore anyone who contributes to the community will be held in high regard, because everyone benefits due to their efforts.

The implication that killing should be considered ethical as long as the person wasn't particularly useful to the community is, in itself, questionable. Suggesting that individuals within that community be made immune to terminal actions solely because of their skills or knowledge is even more questionable. The reason is because people are inherently biased towards their own contributions to any one group, are prone to their own greed, and may be oblivious to their own faults. Meaning that all it takes is a few people in that community to band together and declare themselves "essential to the community" for the makings of a tyranny to start to take shape. More over, if such feelings were prevalent within a community, they may decide that they are more deserving of lands or resources held by other communities since they can make better use of them, or because theirs are no longer enough to meet their needs. Or for that matter, maintaining groups of individuals who are armed or trained by some overseeing body to defend the community against outside harm. THIS is essentially how Kingdoms, Empires, Countries, and subsequently wars, actually came to be. Relatively few play by the rules when they can have so much more by making their own.

[Ghogiel]

The implication that killing should be considered ethical as long as the person wasn't particularly useful to the community is, in itself, questionable. Suggesting that individuals within that community be made immune to terminal actions solely because of their skills or knowledge is even more questionable. The reason is because people are inherently biased towards their own contributions to any one group, are prone to their own greed, and may be oblivious to their own faults. Meaning that all it takes is a few people in that community to band together and declare themselves "essential to the community" for the makings of a tyranny to start to take shape. More over, if such feelings were prevalent within a community, they may decide that they are more deserving of lands or resources held by other communities since they can make better use of them, or because theirs are no longer enough to meet their needs. Or for that matter, maintaining groups of individuals who are armed or trained by some overseeing body to defend the community against outside harm. THIS is essentially how Kingdoms, Empires, Countries, and subsequently wars, actually came to be. Relatively few play by the rules when they can have so much more by making their own.

When any of that happens, it is no longer anarchy based society.

 

It seems to me, that what is described in this thread as the inevitable pitfalls of anarchy, are actually how things work now. :biggrin:

Like what is described above as a downward spiral of anarchy, ends up evolving into the state of the hierarchy we see all over the world now. So ultimately we end up with a few people, with nearly all the wealth in the world, using it to secure more resources at the expense of lesser nations or peoples.

[bben46]

Anarchy, by definition is the absence of organized government - IMHO impossible. As any time 2 people are together for any reason, one or the other assumes a leadership role and the other a subservient role - these roles may change from time to time depending on what they are doing at the time. One may be a better hunter and assumes leadership when they are hunting. the other a better woodcrafter and assumes leadership when making a wooden chair - but that basis of one person being in charge is the basis of government.

 

Adding just a few more people means that while each may have some skills that they are better at, one of the group will ascend to the leadership overall. As someone must make the decisions for the group. That doesn't mean that the others don't have any say so, or that the same person will always make the final decisions. The group may vote over decisions, but still the leader decides to allow the vote and will sway the group in subtle ways - this is called leadership and most people have the ability in a small part. Few have the leadership ability to sway larger groups.

 

When the group gets too large to stop to take a consensus and discuss - however rationally - about every little thing, then the leaders will become evident. They are the ones that can get most (a majority) of the group to go along with what they propose. And get things done that need the either the entire group, or a majority of the group. Still, for more complex undertakings, the group will get together to decide, but that leader will typically either lead or dominate the discussion. Now you have government in it's simplest form (tribal) and you are no longer dealing with anarchy. If I remember from my sociology classes, (long long ago)that point is reached when an isolated group reaches between 10 and 20 individuals.

 

And you will usually have one or two individuals who just don't want to go along. They are not necessarily wrong, but are usually miffed that someone else is telling them what to do when they think everyone should just do it the way they want to. But most of the time they want to be the leader even if they don't have the skills needed. And are often demanding that things be done their way even when a clear majority have already decided to do it another way. Often these will quit the group calling everyone else fools for ignoring their sage advice. These are the people who get branded as anarchists. "Do it my way or I'll quit." "I shouldn't have to do it if I don't want to." (and I should still get the benefits provided by the group even if I don't help.) :rolleyes:

 

Basically once one person agrees to do something that another wants to do instead of what they want to do, anarchy is lost.

[JimboUK]

Humans don't do anarchy, we always form into groups and leaders always emerge within those groups. While that leadership may not technically be the state it will serve the same function, we're social creatures, there's no changing that.

[Ironman5000]

I had this shared on my facebook page and it got me pretty excited, with this thread being on the theme of anarchy I figured it would be appropriate to bring this up here.

Does anybody know much about this group and can they actually deliver results? From having a quick look at related videos they seem to pretty active but not sure if they can be at all effective to sway the balance of power.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Ironman5000