Why anarchism won't work

[SorryNotSorry]

1. Anarchism is incompatible with religion, because anarchism's central tenet of leaderlessness is considered an anathema by all major religions.

2. If it were implemented, an anarchist state would constantly need to be policed in order to keep people who are greedy, controlling, or stupid from coming into positions in which they could make decisions which affect others, and it would no longer be anarchism.

I rest my case.

[alucard]

Yep, the concept of anarchist state is all moot, and betrays the principles of anarchism in a similar way the communist state betrays communism. (The later being somewhat more obvious as it strives for a STATELESS society. I mean, a stateless state... get it? :lol: )

Also, for some reason, when I hear 'anarchism', my mind conjures the image of, what by definitions found on wikipedia should be, 'distributed despotism'.

Any idea when anarchy turned out to mean that people are getting along without coercion? That's laughable!

[cadmiumblimp]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

It's a quote from Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and I think it's rather interesting. That's all I have to say about it for now.

[LonePiper]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

It's a quote from Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and I think it's rather interesting. That's all I have to say about it for now.

I quite like that definition...

[Næt.]

An anarchist state? Isn't that an oxymoron?

It'll happen. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but It'll happen.

Possibly next week sometime.

*I have more intelligent stuff to say, but my brain isn't working properly right now.

[PatricioINTP]

Read Anarchy, State, and Utopia... if you don't mind very dense reading on why a state of anarchy will evolve to an actual State. It is the hardest book to read I have.

[SorryNotSorry]

Somehow I get the sneaking suspicion that most moralists would consider an anarchist state to be something akin to a carbuncle on the ass of the world... just the idea that such a state existed would drive many said moralists to want to annihilate it.

OTOH I think it would feel great to cuss on the airwaves, run my own bootleg TV station, walk down the street naked, and build my own car, all without fear of arrest... as for taxes, if I wanted that pothole in front of my house fixed, I'd be happy to get my lazy butt out there and patch the street with asphalt myself! :-P

[chatha]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

It's a quote from Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and I think it's rather interesting. That's all I have to say about it for now.

self-responsible individuals...tries to live perfectly...

No such thing and that ain't gonna happen... And that's why anarchism would only lead to anarchy. hehe

similar to why communism doesn't work... people are too greedy (like the argument with the pigs over the distribution of food or whatever in Animal Farm, "I thought we were all equal." ... "We are, but some of us are more equal."

Capitalism is about the only system that can work for long, as it is controlled anarchy. (another oxymoron)

[bbctv]

anarchism would work if everybody was nice, but one jackass (and there must exist AT LEAST ONE) would ruin it for everybody.

i'd argue that capitalism isn't controlled anarchy- to some extent, governments in capitalist countries DO often act as agents of the wealthy to further their ambition and control.

i'd say ANY government is controlled anarchy.

[Wolf X Omega]

It's not because of that!

People would totally go rampage and would form Groups so they can defend themselves better, then these groups would then evolve into another social system.

[Trogdor]

1. Anarchism is incompatible with religion, because anarchism's central tenet of leaderlessness is considered an anathema by all major religions.

2. If it were implemented, an anarchist state would constantly need to be policed in order to keep people who are greedy, controlling, or stupid from coming into positions in which they could make decisions which affect others, and it would no longer be anarchism.

I rest my case.

Point 1 is wrong. Anarchism is incompatible with the institutional forms of major religions (because anarchism is incompatible with all institutions) but not with the religious spirit. In fact, religious pioneers (prophets, mystics, saints, etc) have often behaved in an anarchistic way by attacking the existing religious institutions of their time.

Point 2 is spot on. An "anarchist state" is a contradiction in terms, because of the reasons you just stated.

But not only is an anarchist state not possible, it is not desirable either. Why? Because this statement:

as for taxes, if I wanted that pothole in front of my house fixed, I'd be happy to get my lazy butt out there and patch the street with asphalt myself! :-P

is a load of bullshit!! Would you really go out and fix the pothole yourself? When, in your life, have you actually done that? And if you did suddenly get this burst of altruism, where did you get the asphalt from? Did you buy it? With your own money? In an anarchist state anyone who provides services for the common good suffers without benefit, even though he/she has done something commendable and honorable. That is why we need government, to actually go out and fix the potholes! To educate the poor! To fund research! To stop industry from polluting the rivers! This is not abstract moralizing; this is hard economic science! Some things are common goods, and therefore they need a common decision-making body to manage them.

Taxes are just the price we pay for living in civilization. If you don't like it you can pick your ungrateful ass off the couch and move into a cave in the fucking woods!

[LonePiper]

Can we please keep the unnecissary coarse language to a minimum please? I'd like to see this interesting topic stay here and not in the hot-box, or worse the graveyard.

Cheers :)

*LonePiper PP&S mod*

[Trogdor]

Can we please keep the unnecissary coarse language to a minimum please? I'd like to see this interesting topic stay here and not in the hot-box, or worse the graveyard.

Cheers :)

*LonePiper PP&S mod*

I'm sorry teacher, it won't happen again.

Honestly, it didn't seem that bad when I wrote it. I think my social sense is a bit skewed.

[Trogdor]

I still want to continue this discussion though, so let me explain the argument I was trying to make without going onto a crazy tirade.

1. Human beings are social animals. None of us made the choice to live in society; our genes did that for us.

2. If we want to build a civilization we need specialization of labor. Again, nobody ever made the explicit decision of whether of not to build a civilization. But we did anyway, and we cannot ignore that fact.

3. If we do not have pure communism then in order for everybody to get the goods they need (or are told they need by advertisements, I'm not saying that the society we have is perfect) we need to have trade.

4. Economic science (however inexact it is, it is still a science) clearly predicts the tragedy of the commons.

5. The tragedy of the commons is only solvable through the establishment of an authority over the commons. We can debate over what is the best form for this authority to take (I vote democracy) but the fact that one is needed is hard science.

So I say that not only is an anarchist state impossible, it is not even desirable.

Response?

[alucard]

None of us made the choice to live in society; our genes did that for us.

Yeah, I suppose there's something hardwired about humans being somewhat submissive and all;

but "our genes did that for us"? Come now... <_<

5. The tragedy of the commons is only solvable through the establishment of an authority over the commons. We can debate over what is the best form for this authority to take (I vote democracy) but the fact that one is needed is hard science.

What's so scientific about it?

Also, How is democracy a form of authority OVER the commons?

So I say that not only is an anarchist state impossible, it is not even desirable.

As far as anarchist state is contradiction in terms, it's rather pointless to argue it's desirability, IMO.

[Trogdor]

None of us made the choice to live in society; our genes did that for us.

Yeah, I suppose there's something hardwired about humans being somewhat submissive and all;

but "our genes did that for us"? Come now... <_<

It has nothing to do with dominance or submission. We are social animals. It is part of our DNA to live in organized societies; in fact it is part of the DNA of all primates to live in social groups. Whether we like it or not each and every one of us was born into some society or other.

It's actually really unfair. I never chose to be a member of society! I never got to read the fine print on the social contract! But nonetheless I was not born in the woods I was born in a hospital, and I don't live in a cave I live in an apartment.

And besides, even in "cavemen" times people still lived in tribes.

5. The tragedy of the commons is only solvable through the establishment of an authority over the commons. We can debate over what is the best form for this authority to take (I vote democracy) but the fact that one is needed is hard science.

What's so scientific about it?

Also, How is democracy a form of authority OVER the commons?

The science runs as follows. If you have a particular economic good shared by an entire community (for example, the village Commons in the pre-industrial UK, which is where this problem gets it name) then without regulation every member of the community will be motivated to consume as much of that good as possible without concern for its proper management. So in the historical case every peasant would graze their sheep on the Commons, and each one would try to get as much grass for his sheep as possible, without concern for whether the land was being overgrazed. This makes sense, because the harm an individual peasant does to the commons by overgrazing is very small and is shared by all together, wheras the benefit he gains personally (in the form of well-fed sheep) is very large and is felt by him (that is, the decision-maker) alone. So what would end up happening is that each shepherd would let his sheep eat more than their fair share, with the net result that the Commons was overgrazed and grass began to die.

This is what is meant by "tragedy of the commons" in economic science (commons meaning common goods, not common people). Modern examples of it usually revolve around the pollution of a shared common resource, like the atmosphere. It arises naturally from the fact that in an unregulated state everyone is thinking only of themselves. If everybody was indeed truly independant and there were no shared resources, this would not be a problem. But if you have a common good (good taken in the material sense) then unless you appoint some authority whose job it is to manage the good as a whole and not to think about their own private gain then the tragedy of the commons in unavoidable.

Democracy is a form of authority over the commons (goods, not people) in the sense that those elected to the government have the authority to manage shared resources as they think best. Democracy is a form of authority over the commons (people, not goods) in the sense that people have to obey the laws enacted by their elected leaders.

ps-in the historical case the tragedy of the Commons was resolved by the enclosure movement, in which lords fenced off common land and arbitrarily claimed it as their own, thus depriving the common people of their shared resource and with it their independance. Definately not what I want to see happen to the atmosphere!

So I say that not only is an anarchist state impossible, it is not even desirable.

As far as anarchist state is contradiction in terms, it's rather pointless to argue it's desirability, IMO.

I agree with you that an anarchist state is a contradiction in terms, but its still possible to think of a general area that has people living in it but no government, and call that an anarchist area. So I think it is usefull to argue about whether anarchy itself is desirable or not.

[SorryNotSorry]

Can we please keep the unnecissary coarse language to a minimum please? I'd like to see this interesting topic stay here and not in the hot-box, or worse the graveyard.

Cheers :)

*LonePiper PP&S mod*

I didn't know AVEN even had a graveyard, or even a cyber-pillory or a cyber-gibbet.

Might not be a bad idea, though.

[alucard]

Trogdor, I don't even now where to begin... anyway there's 'some' reading material that covers a lot of what I want to say, and even more, better than I ever could, so I'll skip those parts.

http://anthropik.com/thirty/

It has nothing to do with dominance or submission. We are social animals.

It appears to me that you're trying to use the later to dismiss the former. I cannot agree.

It is part of our DNA to live in organized societies; in fact it is part of the DNA of all primates to live in social groups. Whether we like it or not each and every one of us was born into some society or other.

Any particular reason to use "organized societies" and "social groups"? It doesn't sound like they're the same. And while "organized society" might arguably be a "social group", am I correct to assume that the reverse is not really true?

Right now I'm assuming that by organized society, something on the scale of this civilization is meant.

It's actually really unfair. I never chose to be a member of society! I never got to read the fine print on the social contract! But nonetheless I was not born in the woods I was born in a hospital, and I don't live in a cave I live in an apartment.

And? What made you accept it? The social animal in you? Or the "unchallengeable" power of civilization, relative to ones own lack thereof?

As for "our genes did that for us", I actually had in mind how we didn't born on our own.

I agree with you that an anarchist state is a contradiction in terms, but its still possible to think of a general area that has people living in it but no government, and call that an anarchist area. So I think it is usefull to argue about whether anarchy itself is desirable or not.

Perhaps... But which one?

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

[Trogdor]

Trogdor, I don't even now where to begin... anyway there's 'some' reading material that covers a lot of what I want to say, and even more, better than I ever could, so I'll skip those parts.

http://anthropik.com/thirty/

You begin at the begining, of course.

Thanks for showing me that. Its pretty interesting, but my response to the Thirty Theses would be another thread in itself. I'd just like to point out here that I agree completely with #26, Collapse is Inevitable. For a simple reason: entropy. No thing lasts forever. The proximal cause of our fall may be agricultural collapse, it may be war, it may be environmental disaster (leading to an agricultural collapse), but the ultimate cause of our fall will be entropy. That's simple science.

But entropy doesn't say when our civilization will collapse. And I vote later rather than sooner.

It has nothing to do with dominance or submission. We are social animals.

It appears to me that you're trying to use the later to dismiss the former. I cannot agree.

I did not bring up submission; I was stating that it was irrelevant.

It is part of our DNA to live in organized societies; in fact it is part of the DNA of all primates to live in social groups. Whether we like it or not each and every one of us was born into some society or other.

Any particular reason to use "organized societies" and "social groups"? It doesn't sound like they're the same. And while "organized society" might arguably be a "social group", am I correct to assume that the reverse is not really true?

Right now I'm assuming that by organized society, something on the scale of this civilization is meant.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I mean "organized societies" to mean any social group with internal structure, and since even the smallest social group in nature (on the scale of a wolf pack) has internal structure I have been using the two terms as synonyms.

It's actually really unfair. I never chose to be a member of society! I never got to read the fine print on the social contract! But nonetheless I was not born in the woods I was born in a hospital, and I don't live in a cave I live in an apartment.

And? What made you accept it? The social animal in you? Or the "unchallengeable" power of civilization, relative to ones own lack thereof?

You're right, I was a little simplistic there. In fact, I am renegotiating my social contract every minute of every day. And so are you, and so is every other human being on Earth. And the thing is, that when you are negotiating your contract, I am negotiating with you- on society's side. Many times us in the Western world can drive a very hard bargain without even realizing it, for example by impoverishing millions in the third world through idle choices at the supermarket.

But even so, I never said society is unchangeable. I accept it because society is changeable. And I never said individuals lack power. Relative to society one's power is small, but definately nonzero. And there are many nonlinear feedback loops out there.

I agree with you that an anarchist state is a contradiction in terms, but its still possible to think of a general area that has people living in it but no government, and call that an anarchist area. So I think it is usefull to argue about whether anarchy itself is desirable or not.

Perhaps... But which one?

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

Any of them. One of the implications of the tragedy of the commons problem is that even the hypothetical state in the second definition would have all the same environmental problems we are having now, except without any attempt at regulation.