Would anarchism last?

[beenherebeforeagain]

How is this possible without rules?

Who said there were no rules?

Of course there are rules.

Rules such as "One Person, One Vote." "Due Process of Law." "Shared decision making." "Each gets their say." "The interests of the community outweigh, generally, the needs of any one member of the community."

 

[osgart]

Here are some attempts.

What is Anarchism?

Question. What is Anarchism? Question. Can a socialist and a capitalist both be anarchists? If you ask Google what the definition of anarchism is, it says belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or...

www.religiousforums.com

Anarchism and its variants.

@Heyo @syo I want to discuss anarchism and it’s variations, I welcome you guys to participate in this discussion. 1. What is anarchism? Anarchism is a political system in which there is no state I.e. government. It is not the absence of law and order as many presume, rather, it is the absence...

www.religiousforums.com

If you have further specific questions feel free to ask!

It's like having a government without calling it a government. Law and order, cooperative rules, and complete cooperative agreement without administrators, and no hierarchy of rule. It would be toppled immediately the moment someone gains any of their own power, and disagreement emerges.

There is no law and order without the power to enforce it. An overwhelming amount of decisions to be made forces the need for representative delegated hierarchy of power.

It assumes that all people will be self sufficient without need of any help.

Conservatives strive for minimal government and a totally free from law marketplace using government only as a means of enforcement. That's not too far from anarchy.

It's the nature of humanity to form empires, and oppress those that struggle to keep up.

There's the people that know how to work, and those that manage them.

Anarchy is like starting from scratch, and undoing all of history, we would be doomed to repeat the failures of humanity, and democracy would be something to fight for again.

Is there such a thing as an anarchist democracy?

What about a constitutional anarchy?

In an anarchy there'd be no one to lead and make tough decisions

I vote no.

 

[an anarchist]

So, when I talk about Anarchism, I am referring specifically to Anarcho-Capitalism. Many other schools of Anarchism do not view Ancap as a valid form of Anarchism. On Wikipedia, Ancap isn't included in the Anarchism portal, which I find amusing and unfair. You will see in this very thread the variety of Anarchist thought. I am an individualist, others are more of a collectivist.

1. Who decides the law? or what is right or wrong?

In Ancapistan, it is supply and demand, that is, the free market that decides the law. So, what does that mean?

First off, there is not a sole provider of who decides what is right or wrong. In an absolute free market, everything is provided by the free market. Even law, even order. Ancapistan is a hypothetical land. How exactly an absolute free market would look like is a hypothetical. The marketplace would spontaneously ebb and flow with supply and demand.

No matter how this hypothetical would look like, a few things would have to hold true regardless. The law and order of Ancapistan would for all intent and purposes, be decided by the general consensus of society. Murder, for example, I am sure we can agree that people nowadays will generally be against. So, in Ancapistan, I do think it would be safe to assume that the denizens would agree that murder is wrong. The competing law arbiters, who are competing for paying customers, would have to rule that murder is wrong in the cases that are brought before them. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it will be the general consensus of society that decides what is right or wrong. I do not claim Anarchism to be a perfect system, simply the best system.

You may say things like -

before it is even possible to take anarchism seriously.

but am I supposed to take government and statism seriously? Anarchism may be sorely lacking in history, forcing Anarchist philosophers to at least partly rely on hypotheticals when illustrating what an Anarchist society would look like. Statism has the opposite problem. We have thousands of years of recorded history to pick apart. I am supposed to take seriously the notion that government is best suited for providing law and order? I think not.

2. What happens to a person who doesn't follow the rules and who decides the punishment?

Well I can draw up a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical Ancapistan, but I still feel inadequate to be able to intelligently convey that. I got busy today and didn't get too much reading done. But truth be told, it seems I am going to have to do some thinking myself, the book I am reading is leaving me unsatisfied with it's arguments. Not that I disagree, I just feel like the book is weak. I'm done thinking hard for the night time for football and pizza, but I shall be treating this thread nicely ;^]

What I want to leave with you is this question: Am I supposed to take government seriously?

 

[Nimos]

First off, there is not a sole provider of who decides what is right or wrong. In an absolute free market, everything is provided by the free market. Even law, even order.

That is too vague.

I don't see how law and order can be decided by the free market? I don't even know what that means?

"Car company A" has copied "Car company B" car design and stolen all their technology etc. and is now selling it slightly cheaper, Company B doesn't like this, so they get angry. Company A doesn't care, so who steps in with authority over Company A?

How is this authority decided in a free market? Company A assumingly has as much to say as Company B? And does this authority apply to all companies? Wouldn't you have to ask all the companies? And does this only concern companies, shouldn't the citizens also have a say in what these companies can do and can't do?

No matter how this hypothetical would look like, a few things would have to hold true regardless. The law and order of Ancapistan would for all intent and purposes, be decided by the general consensus of society.

Nothing is decided by a consensus. Even today with law and order, people and companies constantly end up in court and lawsuits.

What I want to leave with you is this question: Am I supposed to take government seriously?

No, you don't.

But there is a huge difference between the ideology of a system such as democracy and that of it not functioning correctly. At least in a democracy, citizens influence the direction the system should go, because we can all agree on certain authorities (despite issues) functioning as part of an elected government. Such as the police or military etc. that serve the government/country and have to follow certain rules decided by the government. So even if this system is often broken or corrupted it is overall a functional system, where citizens through their votes can change things over time that they don't like.

The current system is by no means perfect, it is biased and corrupt. And that needs to be fixed, but honestly, I think that would require a completely different approach to how the political system works. I would personally prefer that such a system was controlled in a central AGI able to guide and stay objective with the sole intent of creating an optimized and equal society for all humans. And where politicians' purpose was not to win elections or secure their job, but to serve humanity or the country as a whole making sure that these tasks got implemented in society. Said in another way a society governed by rational thinking based on facts and data provided by the AGI, that no humans will ever be able to keep track of.

One of the huge issues with modern-day politics is that it seems to have forgotten this part "..government of the people, by the people, for the people.."

Now it is more like "..goverment of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations" and in all this, you have individuals (politicians) working on their careers.

But how anarchism is going to be the solution I have a difficult time to see. What is needed is objectivity and transparency, so all humans (citizens) know what is going on, and a system that doesn't allow politicians to screw over people for personal gains or be bought by corporations and get away with it.

 

[danieldemol]

What I want to leave with you is this question: Am I supposed to take government seriously?

What would not taking it seriously look like? If it would look like breaking our laws society will give you a reason enough to respect our laws via penalties that are applicable so I would suggest taking at least the laws of the government seriously.

Another thought. If you can't convince enough of us to take anarchism seriously it won't matter if you dont take government seriously as unless you live on an island you will be stuck with it in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

everything is provided by the free market. Even law, even order.

Then in my view you are not describing a society that is free from force. You are describing a society where force is provided by powerful private interests.

Since what you mean by anarchism is presumably a society free from force I think what you are describing is inherently self contradictory.

 

[crossfire]

So, when I talk about Anarchism, I am referring specifically to Anarcho-Capitalism. Many other schools of Anarchism do not view Ancap as a valid form of Anarchism. On Wikipedia, Ancap isn't included in the Anarchism portal, which I find amusing and unfair. You will see in this very thread the variety of Anarchist thought. I am an individualist, others are more of a collectivist.

In Ancapistan, it is supply and demand, that is, the free market that decides the law. So, what does that mean?

First off, there is not a sole provider of who decides what is right or wrong. In an absolute free market, everything is provided by the free market. Even law, even order. Ancapistan is a hypothetical land. How exactly an absolute free market would look like is a hypothetical. The marketplace would spontaneously ebb and flow with supply and demand.

No matter how this hypothetical would look like, a few things would have to hold true regardless. The law and order of Ancapistan would for all intent and purposes, be decided by the general consensus of society. Murder, for example, I am sure we can agree that people nowadays will generally be against. So, in Ancapistan, I do think it would be safe to assume that the denizens would agree that murder is wrong. The competing law arbiters, who are competing for paying customers, would have to rule that murder is wrong in the cases that are brought before them. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it will be the general consensus of society that decides what is right or wrong. I do not claim Anarchism to be a perfect system, simply the best system.

And victims who can't pay for law arbiters? Are they supposed to resort to prostitution to pay for law arbiters? (Speaking of prostitution, what's the difference between a prostitute and a paid arbiter, for that matter?)

You may say things like -

but am I supposed to take government and statism seriously? Anarchism may be sorely lacking in history, forcing Anarchist philosophers to at least partly rely on hypotheticals when illustrating what an Anarchist society would look like. Statism has the opposite problem. We have thousands of years of recorded history to pick apart. I am supposed to take seriously the notion that government is best suited for providing law and order? I think not.

Well I can draw up a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical Ancapistan, but I still feel inadequate to be able to intelligently convey that. I got busy today and didn't get too much reading done. But truth be told, it seems I am going to have to do some thinking myself, the book I am reading is leaving me unsatisfied with it's arguments. Not that I disagree, I just feel like the book is weak. I'm done thinking hard for the night time for football and pizza, but I shall be treating this thread nicely ;^]

What I want to leave with you is this question: Am I supposed to take government seriously?

Looking at the goings on in the underground economies makes my stomach churn. Are not the underground economies anarchist (outside of the government and illicit?)

 

[Kfox]

Who said there were no rules?

Of course there are rules.

Rules such as "One Person, One Vote." "Due Process of Law." "Shared decision making." "Each gets their say." "The interests of the community outweigh, generally, the needs of any one member of the community."

If nobody is gonna enforce any rules, how is that different from no rules at all?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Anarchism never being prevalent throughout all of recorded history up to the present day helps support your point.

Suppose I had a genie in a bottle and I wished for society to convert from statism to anarchism. What would be required od this magic genie for: one, to make it initially happen, and two, to make it stick?

A theory on why government exists in the first place. It‘s simple, government has always been present because there has always been predatory people present. Predatory people create and fill the roles of government and prey on the general populace.

An understanding of this is required of future generations. Government has always painted itself as both inevitable and necessary. As long as people believe in this on mass, combined with predatory figures who push this lie, government will be inevitable and anarchism impossible.

Edit: I’m fleshing this out with my next response ;^] dont wait for me though

It usually brings about a feudal society.

Anarchism usually never lasts because eventually, a dominant faction will eventually wield enough power over people either through a benevolent body, or a despot warlord.

 

[Heyo]

Now it is more like "..goverment of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations" and in all this, you have individuals (politicians) working on their careers.

But how anarchism is going to be the solution I have a difficult time to see. What is needed is objectivity and transparency, so all humans (citizens) know what is going on, and a system that doesn't allow politicians to screw over people for personal gains or be bought by corporations and get away with it.

I don't see anarchism as a solution in the way of overthrowing the government and declaring anarchism. I see it as a goal and a consequence of fixing the problems with democracy.

 

[Nimos]

I don't see anarchism as a solution in the way of overthrowing the government and declaring anarchism. I see it as a goal and a consequence of fixing the problems with democracy.

But how would such a goal be achieved? if not for a total collapse of the government. When it happens now it is instantly replaced by another, or a military one, it doesn't seem likely that it will end with anarchism as a result.

 

[Heyo]

But how would such a goal be achieved? if not for a total collapse of the government. When it happens now it is instantly replaced by another, or a military one, it doesn't seem likely that it will end with anarchism as a result.

Democracy has made some impressive steps forward, even without government collapse. Individual rights and freedoms have been achieved through democratic measures. E.g. women's right to vote and be elected, gay's right to marry, diverse transparency laws. The more rights and freedoms the individual gains, the nearer we come to anarchism.

 

[Nimos]

Democracy has made some impressive steps forward, even without government collapse. Individual rights and freedoms have been achieved through democratic measures. E.g. women's right to vote and be elected, gay's right to marry, diverse transparency laws. The more rights and freedoms the individual gains, the nearer we come to anarchism.

I would disagree with that. Democracy (Government in general) is securing people's rights in most cases, if there was no authority to do that, who would prevent someone from simply reversing or ignoring them or forcing their own rules on others?

 

[Heyo]

I would disagree with that. Democracy (Government in general) is securing people's rights in most cases, if there was no authority to do that, who would prevent someone from simply reversing or ignoring them or forcing their own rules on others?

Other people. As I said above, anarchism is taking responsibility.

 

[Eddi]

@an anarchist

I don't like Anarcho-Capitalism as I am personally better off living in a society with a state

I think it would be irrational for me to want such a system

In what way is Anarcho-Capitalism in my interests?

I think ordinary people are best served by Social Democracy

 

[Nimos]

Other people. As I said above, anarchism is taking responsibility.

I think that is a bit too optimistic, people can't even do it now even though nothing prevents them from behaving like that. People get in fights over sports events, neighbors over their fences, what hope is there that they won't do it due to racism, religious differences, or simple arguments?

These are extremely common issues, relying on people simply behaving better as the solution seems like a utopian dream.

 

[sayak83]

So, when I talk about Anarchism, I am referring specifically to Anarcho-Capitalism. Many other schools of Anarchism do not view Ancap as a valid form of Anarchism. On Wikipedia, Ancap isn't included in the Anarchism portal, which I find amusing and unfair. You will see in this very thread the variety of Anarchist thought. I am an individualist, others are more of a collectivist.

In Ancapistan, it is supply and demand, that is, the free market that decides the law. So, what does that mean?

First off, there is not a sole provider of who decides what is right or wrong. In an absolute free market, everything is provided by the free market. Even law, even order. Ancapistan is a hypothetical land. How exactly an absolute free market would look like is a hypothetical. The marketplace would spontaneously ebb and flow with supply and demand.

No matter how this hypothetical would look like, a few things would have to hold true regardless. The law and order of Ancapistan would for all intent and purposes, be decided by the general consensus of society. Murder, for example, I am sure we can agree that people nowadays will generally be against. So, in Ancapistan, I do think it would be safe to assume that the denizens would agree that murder is wrong. The competing law arbiters, who are competing for paying customers, would have to rule that murder is wrong in the cases that are brought before them. The point I am trying to illustrate is that it will be the general consensus of society that decides what is right or wrong. I do not claim Anarchism to be a perfect system, simply the best system.

You may say things like -

but am I supposed to take government and statism seriously? Anarchism may be sorely lacking in history, forcing Anarchist philosophers to at least partly rely on hypotheticals when illustrating what an Anarchist society would look like. Statism has the opposite problem. We have thousands of years of recorded history to pick apart. I am supposed to take seriously the notion that government is best suited for providing law and order? I think not.

Well I can draw up a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical Ancapistan, but I still feel inadequate to be able to intelligently convey that. I got busy today and didn't get too much reading done. But truth be told, it seems I am going to have to do some thinking myself, the book I am reading is leaving me unsatisfied with it's arguments. Not that I disagree, I just feel like the book is weak. I'm done thinking hard for the night time for football and pizza, but I shall be treating this thread nicely ;^]

What I want to leave with you is this question: Am I supposed to take government seriously?

Yes. Government is one of the most important things to take seriously.

 

[Heyo]

I think that is a bit too optimistic, people can't even do it now even though nothing prevents them from behaving like that. People get in fights over sports events, neighbors over their fences, what hope is there that they won't do it due to racism, religious differences, or simple arguments?

These are extremely common issues, relying on people simply behaving better as the solution seems like a utopian dream.

I don't subscribe to the Judeo-Christian-Muslimic Menschenbild. We are not inherently bad and we are not immune to change. We can take responsibility - but we have to learn step by step. We have to grow up first and get liberties according to our ability to deal with them.
Your argument is that of every conservative at all times. I bet there were some who predicted the collapse of society when "irrational" women got the vote. "Too much liberty. They can't handle it."

 

[Nimos]

I don't subscribe to the Judeo-Christian-Muslimic Menschenbild. We are not inherently bad and we are not immune to change. We can take responsibility - but we have to learn step by step. We have to grow up first and get liberties according to our ability to deal with them.
Your argument is that of every conservative at all times. I bet there were some who predicted the collapse of society when "irrational" women got the vote. "Too much liberty. They can't handle it."

That isn't my point and has nothing to do with whether we are inherently bad, which again is a subjective opinion. Some things they do in some countries I think are wrong, whereas for them this is considered the correct way to do it. There is no objective right and wrong here only a subjective opinion about it.

Despite me, disagreeing with some of the things they do, we could probably agree on a whole range of things, like good universal healthcare and a high living standard etc.

Yet this is not enough to have a functional system where anarchism could thrive, because it is purely based on the assumption that everyone can get along, and there is absolutely no historical evidence that this will happen automatically due to a political system or lack thereof because all these systems are biased. because that is how humans function. We are inherently stupid due to our lack of ability to work with huge amounts of data.

If you knew all things on the internet, you would be far more capable of sorting through garbage and facts and ultimately arrive at rational solutions. But we are incapable of this so we lack and get biased information which eventually shapes our extremely narrow worldview. And this only deals with the factual data we have available.

Then you have to account for the religious bias which doesn't follow any rational or logical approach. You can have clear-as-day contradictions yet the conclusion is as if it was written in the very fabric of the Universe itself. This means that there is close to zero foundation for a rational discussion here. It is no longer about what is best for humanity but rather whether this is what the religious text dictates. A simple example is abortion, which is heavily opposed by religious people compared to atheists or less religious people. You can't argue with God, so there is no way to reach a solution that would ever go against what he is interpreting to dictate and as we know, even religious people don't agree on what God wants and don't want.

All these things you have to account for in anarchism, how do you deal with them even remotely? Simply assuming that people will somehow get along is enough to throw this whole idea in the bin. Again there is no evidence that this would ever happen.

To me, the best solution to remove biases and corruption from government is to make it transparent, objective, and based on factual data and the only thing that can do that is an AGI, as it can collect, sort, and cross-reference all data and provide unbiased solutions that could be understood by all humans.
So the only thing humans would have to agree on would be a common universal set of rules for the AGI to follow, which could be, freedom of religion, equal healthcare for everyone, equality above all, basically things that would result in a high living standard for all humans. The most difficult part would probably be that those in charge would have to give up powers and all resources on Earth should be made available for the AGI or all of humanity.

This is probably only possible if resources are abundant, so that would require us to mine space as that would make it kind of pointless to not ultimately share everything.

 

[PureX]

Anarchy would last exactly as long as it takes the nearest bullyboy(s) to figure out that they have free reign to do whatever they please to whomever is weaker than they are. And since these people live for this sort of scenario, it won't take them long to see and seize the moment.