Which kind of government is best?

[Mathematician]

This may sound like a trollish comment so please excuse me if it comes off that way. I don't intend it that way.

The descriptions of anarchism that I've seen in this thread seem to imply the need for large-scale organization and coordination. Presumably, people would be required to effect this organization and coordination. Decisions would have to be made, and those decisions cannot always rest on the establishment of a consensus. Thus the buck will have to stop somewhere. In other words, to make anarchism work, it seems to me that you need government.

Federalized projects occur all the time. See the international space agency. I might add a lot of companies work together without any conflict, so merely lifting the state out of the picture doesn't askew anything.

I don't recall consensus democracy being brought up in this thread. It could certainly occur in small cooperatives and home associations, but that's a different matter that associations will decide independently.

The government most frequently appealed to is some sort of direct democracy. The problem with that term is its slipperiness. What exactly does it mean?

Whatever people want it to mean. One association could utilize participatory democracy with the internet, another demarchy, and a third something like Switzerland. Since people can freely leave any association they want, permanent leadership doesn't really exist anywhere.

Switzerland says it's a direct democracy, yet it clearly has a government.

You're confusing the term state with government. According to anarchists, a state is a hierarchy of government that lays claim to a geographical area.

Certain cities in Massachusetts apparently use direct democracy, but it's kinda helpful that they have both state and federal governments keeping the peace so they can do so.

Why? How often does a small town in Massachusetts call in the state guard?

In other words, DD can work, but only in the presence of some sort of government.

The EZLN in Mexico would disagree. DD has worked in Spain, Iran, Mexico, China, Argentina, South Korea - its presence was overwhelmed by the warfare of militarist, capitalist, and fascist states. Supposing 70% of the developed world was fascist, it's not hard to presume their influence would snub out heterodox systems. If anarchism becomes the dominant system, it can do the same to statism.

 

[Dunemeister]

Ah. I assumed that anarchists don't want government. If all you're saying is that they don't want government in the form of states, I guess that's fair enough. States are certainly morally ambiguous entities that do a lot of harm along with a lot of good. I guess I'm open to seeing whether anarchist governments can deliver the goods better than their state competitors. I admit that I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

 

[rojse]

From what has been discussed about people's idealistic views about anarchy, people have still depicted a social system where power is uneven, just in a less overt way. Posters have failed to show how these societies will not have different social levels, or ones with political power and ones without.

It's all well and good to say that "the people will decided this among themselves, isn't anarchy a great government system?" but whom coordinates all of this effort? Whom decides what resources are required for these group ventures? We have leaders, but we won't call them Presidents or the like, we'll just call them Venture Leaders or something else, but it all amounts to the same in the end.

And I still want a reply that answers my first post, particularly the second paragraph.

I still think that a central government is necessary for various reasons. For example, as an individual, the possible incentives I have to build large infrastructure, such as dams or road networks, is outweighed by the effort that I would require to put in. Now, a formal government structure is able to put in this effort, because it can look past the view of a single person to a view of the multitude.

Governments can also stop people from doing things that are detrimental to the whole of a state. If there were no government, I wonder how long our forests and natural parks would last, for example, or how long it would take for beaches to be mined. A government also centralises large government research projects, military defense, and so forth, which an anarchist state could not.

 

[Mister Emu]

Christian Theocratic Autocracy(with me as the Autocrat )

Two things to Anarachy:
A) It doesn't appear that you do away with state, merely break it up into a less centralized affair, thus instead of one Government(state) you have a group of loosely associated governments. What is the difference, excepting the localization?

B) What is to stop Association A from invading and taking the land of Association B... people have a nasty habit of not caring what happens as long as it doesn't affect them. Are Association C-F's people expected to die for Association B's land?

 

[Mathematician]

A) It doesn't appear that you do away with state, merely break it up into a less centralized affair, thus instead of one Government(state) you have a group of loosely associated governments. What is the difference, excepting the localization?

Look up the EZLN and anarchist Spain. In both instances, people were (are in the case of the EZLN) allowed to decide for themselves what system they wanted. The EZLN in particular is championed as the most libertarian in the world: as soon as it sprung into existence, it told citizens "within" the region they occupy that they have no obligations to follow the EZLN patterns.

If we take past examples as any indication, there would probably be an overwhelming presence of a certain association in one geographical area, but individuals would still live in harmony so long as they don't break any of the laws of their immediate neighbors.

B) What is to stop Association A from invading and taking the land of Association B...

And again, this same question can be asked of a state. What stops the United States from taking over Canada's natural gasoline? What stops Russia from re-invading Poland?

eople have a nasty habit of not caring what happens as long as it doesn't affect them.

Bingo. War tends to - you know - affect people on both sides, especially when it's based in decentralized conflicts.

From what has been discussed about people's idealistic views about anarchy

I fail to see how a tried and true system like anarchism is idealistic when put up against some pretty inane free market fetishism which calls for the privatization of public schools - everywhere. Anarchism has worked in different forms and in different regions.

Posters have failed to show how these societies will not have different social levels

Technically a mentor at karate creates a social level. It's completely voluntary, however.

but whom coordinates all of this effort?

Who coordinates international law, trade, and policies?

All these nut-buster questions can be applied to states. I already answered the question: rights are won at the end of a gun. If a large portion of humanity lives under a system of anarchism, it can occur. You can substitute anarchy for theocracy, liberal republics, fascism, or anything.

And I still want a reply that answers my first post, particularly the second paragraph.

I already answered your question. Associations can still have businesses, and they can still have public works, and they can still have money (or not). So what - do you need a centralized state government to subsidize your work for more power?

Hilariously, the worst that can happen is the re-emergence of states - the very things you're holding onto.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Uh, why?
People will flock to whoever best suits their needs, which could be a monarchy.

I feel most people probably would flock to a socialist form of anarchy. The people decide on someone to take on a form of leader position. A good example of this, allthough fictious, would be the Theatre Des Vampires from Interview with the Vampire. Allthough Armand is the "leader" he has no real power, just a strong influence. But when the group wants something, they will do it if he stands for it or not.
Apply the same concept in real life, and you have Anarchy in it's pureist form. People taking care of themeselves and eachother without a government to act as a middle man. Damns, railroads, scientific research, all of it is possible without a government figure to fund or support. It comes down to people helping people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Posters have failed to show how these societies will not have different social levels

Under America's system, you have thousands of positions, several tiers, and corruption running rampant.
Under anarchy, there are no presidents, kings, senators, parlament, governors, serfs, peasants, lobyist, or any other political position. What very losely resembles a mayor may exist, or a type of committee, but most likely nothing more or complicated.

 

[rojse]

I'll try and change my line of questioning, because I was not getting a response for what I had asked.

In an anarchistic society, what is stopping me from diverting a river to flood the Grand Canyon, just because I want a space to run my motorboat? Or chopping down a World Heritage forest because I want to sell the wood? Or killing tigers because I can sell the pelts and organs for an obscene profit?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In an anarchistic society, what is stopping me from diverting a river to flood the Grand Canyon, just because I want a space to run my motorboat? Or chopping down a World Heritage forest because I want to sell the wood? Or killing tigers because I can sell the pelts and organs for an obscene profit?

People. If you flood the Grand Canyon, what is stoping someone else from sinking your boat? If you chop down a forest, what is stopping someone else from making you disappear into the woods you haven't got to yet, to leave you with a steak straped to your chest for a bear to find? If you you poach tigers, whats to stop someone else from shooting you?
The same goes for people who would do harm to others. Someone can rape thier next door neighbor's daughter, but there is a possibility the rapist will take up a forced residence in the father's basement, being torchered for the rest of his days. And even so, if someone is a problem starter, the people can exile the problematic person.

"I can do whatever I want" is a very innacurate phrase alot of people think of when they think of Anarchy. Even most so-called anarchist wannabes think this phrase to be true.

 

[Mister Emu]

And again, this same question can be asked of a state. What stops the United States from taking over Canada's natural gasoline? What stops Russia from re-invading Poland

Goodwill, treaties, Internal politics, threat of force, gain-loss comparisons... Now, if you would, answer the question... Are you expecting international(U.N.) intervention? Inter-association intervention? Is each association to fend for itself?

Bingo. War tends to - you know - affect people on both sides, especially when it's based in decentralized conflicts.

But given a decentralization of governments, you wouldn't have any outside protection against roving bands of thugs with greater military might than your association, much less an organized force. We have such protection in a union of states under a federal government.

Anarchism has worked in different forms and in different regions.

Can you point out a period/region where stand-alone anarchy(that is an anarchy not under the purview of a state), preferably over an extended mass of land, has existed for a more than one generation?

Hilariously, the worst that can happen is the re-emergence of states - the very things you're holding onto.

Indeed, and very un-hilariously, we may have no say in what form that state takes. I'd find it anything but funny if a hardline fundamentalist sect of any religion is what emerged to pre-eminence...

Under anarchy, there are no presidents, kings, senators, parlament, governors, serfs, peasants, lobyist, or any other political position.

Who says?

People.

*Shudder*

 

[rojse]

People. If you flood the Grand Canyon, what is stoping someone else from sinking your boat? If you chop down a forest, what is stopping someone else from making you disappear into the woods you haven't got to yet, to leave you with a steak straped to your chest for a bear to find? If you you poach tigers, whats to stop someone else from shooting you?
The same goes for people who would do harm to others. Someone can rape thier next door neighbor's daughter, but there is a possibility the rapist will take up a forced residence in the father's basement, being torchered for the rest of his days. And even so, if someone is a problem starter, the people can exile the problematic person.

"I can do whatever I want" is a very innacurate phrase alot of people think of when they think of Anarchy. Even most so-called anarchist wannabes think this phrase to be true.

Whatever the people do in retribution, that does not stop the fact that the Grand Canyon is flooded, or that I have killed every single tiger off to extinction in order to make money, or that a forest has now been turned into cheap furniture and woodchips.

Also, you have assumed that everyone will blatantly do whatever they please in broad daylight. In fact, people might be a bit more covert in what they do - instead of simply raping someone, leaving a victim and witness behind, they might simply rape and then murder that person. They might even frame someone else for that act.

 

[Charlotte,NC Humanist]

If one is a DOMINIONIST in viewpoints & subscribes to principals of CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM then: a government that has achieved laws that allow for
putting homosexuals and those that engage in extra marital sex to death; that
does not allow for dancing; that dictates the how and when of religious worship
and incorporates the rest of biblically expressed laws ( basically, I'm easy so, you can choose any of the multitude of bibles to abstract desired laws from ) to replace & become part of our current American government law...then that is the best type of a government, functioning by its laws, for you.

However, that approach is just not my cuppa tea.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, you have assumed that everyone will blatantly do whatever they please in broad daylight. In fact, people might be a bit more covert in what they do - instead of simply raping someone, leaving a victim and witness behind, they might simply rape and then murder that person. They might even frame someone else for that act.

We do have the technology to allow us to figure out rape cases. Just because there is no government doesn't mean the technology is non-existent. The same crime solving techniques can still exist under Anarchy.
As far as technology in general goes, there would probably be less vanity items, but technology would still exist, and probably flourish to a much higher degree that systems that involve money won't allow.

 

[Mathematician]

Indeed, and very un-hilariously, we may have no say in what form that state takes. I'd find it anything but funny if a hardline fundamentalist sect of any religion is what emerged to pre-eminence...

Says the Christian autarch?

 

[Mathematician]

I'll try and change my line of questioning, because I was not getting a response for what I had asked.

In an anarchistic society, what is stopping me from diverting a river to flood the Grand Canyon, just because I want a space to run my motorboat? Or chopping down a World Heritage forest because I want to sell the wood? Or killing tigers because I can sell the pelts and organs for an obscene profit?

The tiger problem is easily resolvable by my above remarks: ban the demand in the associations against tiger pelts.

The people already present at these locations will stop you from flooding or wood cutting.

 

[Mister Emu]

Says the Christian autarch?

I never said my Autocracy would be either hardline or fundamentalist