Anarchy does it work?

[U.S. Patriot]

Just like we spoke about in my Political class. Which I love because I'm the minority. I think, I'm the only right winger in there. Makes for great heated arguments. Anytime I say something you can hear the crickets. Ok, back to my point. We discussed how the Government is a necessary evil. To little is anarchy and to much is tyranny. As someone stated above. I disagree with a lot of what the Government does. However, who wants the Wild West again? Good replies though guys. I can use this for my upcoming report for class. That's one reason I posted it.

 

[beararms1776]

Who hear, thinks that anarchy does not lead to chaos? Or, that as a society we can survive without Government. Meaning, that without Government you would have chaos. I ask, because of a argument I have been engaged in with a couple of Liberals. Ones uneducated response was **** the system. The other gave me a link to an anarchist website. Which goes on to say. That a free society is one without Government. That as human beings we can live and get along without Government. I just want to slap the **** out of the both of them.

Liberals!

They're all for it my man until they have to share something of their own. I think they forget about that in the process of thinking only of themselves.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
However, who wants the Wild West again? snip

I do. Crime was low, freedom was high, and a man or woman could get rich through hard work. "Wild West" is pretty much my version of "enough" government.

 

[PatriotPride]

There will ALWAYS be "government". Even a governing warlord is a form of government; a rough dictatorship. Those who have power will ALWAYS rule over those who do not. It's been proven time and time again throughout history.

 

[The Meach]

http://http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=52382394

For your viewing pleasure

 

[infidel]

If there was anarchy, wouldn't it lead to exactly what we have now?

 

[tyler34]

I'm honestly surprised mrjarell hasn't said something in here yet.

 

[SavageEagle]

There's a certain book which cannot be discussed which holds an almost perfect system of government within it.

I would expand on how it's handled, but I'm not sure if I can without getting banned.

 

[Eddie]

I'm using a different definition of the word "State".

How are you defining state? With government on a local level I have both a vote and a voice. In a small town I can stop the mayor on the street to discuss an issue. I can find a town councilman or a county commissioner to express my opinion to. In a rural area my one vote and my one opinion can have an impact.

As goverment grows larger my voice gets smaller. I still have my vote but I can't go talk to the governor. I can e-mail my state reps and I will see them maybe once a year but they won't have time to talk much.

On a national level my voice is so small it is almost meaningless. I can't directly express my opinion to a president and I can only make contact with a Senator's assistants and then only through e-mail.

I think some kind of local goverment; someone to resolve disputes and maintain basic things like roads is useful. The bigger the governement gets the less I find it doing useful things.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

i suggest you read Freehold by Michael Z. Williamson.

Anarchy isn't a complete absence of a governing authority. It is the absence of Legislation and executive regulation. Power is wielded by communities not by the state. Crime is still punished, Crime just requires a victim for it to be a crime. Military takes the form of local militia. Communities band together for common defense against a larger foe.

"Anarchy" is the freest form of civilization, however it it places responsibility for your life on you. No catch-nets, or social securities.

Freehold isn't anarchical: it requires that anyone who wants to run such government as there is pay for the privelege with their own money, as well as requiring everyone else to be responsible for themselves. In other words, it expounds on the idea that if power-seekers had to pay for their hobby out of their own pockets, they wouldn't have access to enough power or wealth to tyrranize everyone else and only "essentials" would get funded.

Also, while citizen militia's played a vital role in resisting invasion, it was the small professional standing armed forces that provided leadership, logistics, and the hard core of the combatants which won the decisive battle.

Protection of its population from invasion and the threat of military/political coersion is one of the few legitimate concerns of the State. If a country wants to maintain its freedoms from outside domination, it must maintain a military capability strong enough to counter any realistic military threat that can be foreseen. Too large a military is wasteful of resources and a temptation to intervene in areas they don't properly belong. Too small a military means there won't be enough experienced cadre to expand the forces, if needed, and possibly not enough experienced manpower and equipment to carry the fight until militias can be made ready to join the fight.

 

[dross]

And they probably said it with a straight face. I have often wondered what happens in a persons life that gets them thinking some of the asinine things they believe in. It kinda irritates me.

It might be the same thing that happens to the people who dismiss things out of hand that they most likely don't know enough about to even explain what they're dismissing.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

There will ALWAYS be "government". Even a governing warlord is a form of government; a rough dictatorship. Those who have power will ALWAYS rule over those who do not. It's been proven time and time again throughout history.

^this^ You take a nation of our size and natural resources. If we had no Military and Law enforcement to protect us. Even with us owning a lot of firearms. A stronger nation is likely to invade us.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I do. Crime was low, freedom was high, and a man or woman could get rich through hard work. "Wild West" is pretty much my version of "enough" government.

Well, what I mean is this. Back then a lot of confrontations where handled with a dual. Someone, pisses you off in a saloon, you just put a bullet in them. It was a lot easier to get away with crimes back then. Now with all the technology we have. The common moronic criminal will get busted. Back then they could just ride off. However, I do like how they handled a lot of sentences carried out for crime back then. I also agree, that with hard work, you could become very wealthy. Also, this nation is so reliant on technology. That most people could not survive. Having to do everything themselves. It's good and bad. It would weed out the morons. However, it would affect a lot of good people too.

 

[Vasili]

^this^ You take a nation of our size and natural resources. If we had no Military and Law enforcement to protect us. Even with us owning a lot of firearms. A stronger nation is likely to invade us.

IF the gubmint of the united states of america WERE to drop, we'd be invaded within hours.

and the invaders would be annihilated within days.

mexico would abandon all pretense of civil behavior, china and russia would immediately send in flotillas of battlecruisers.

and the people who know how to operate those big floating boats and warplanes and nuclear missiles would end that. the military doesn't stop being military just because the general's MIA. so it is with people. there are a very few human rules, and every thing else, even laws, are cultural. geography and culture alone limit national boundaries.

even if we annexed mexico RIGHT NOW, which i have no doubt in my mind at all, we COULD do, it wouldn't hold. mexicans have learned to self-identify as mexicans. they used to be indians, but the spaniards came, bred them down to a distilled population and indoctrinated them with spanish cultures, customs, etc. and now they like those customs, their culture, their roman catholicism.

just like we've grown to like our nation, our country, our people, our culture, our catholicism and protestantism and our jesus of nazareth and our shopping malls and winning of wars. all it takes is acclimation. if it ever does hit the fan, whatever happens, anarchy, true anarchy as most people think of it, won't be forever. it's deeply ingrained within human beings, even within the lowest animals, to establish rules and orders and other silly things like that.

the whole world could burn down and if there were even but two people, there'd be more in short order. with rules. and some form of attempt to control the lives of others. just look at everyone on here, clamoring, begging for more rules. SOMEONE HAS GOT TO BE IN CHARGE OR WE'RE ALL BONED!

pathetic. things will continue in some way even if they don't continue in this one.

 

[Fletch]

How are you defining state? With government on a local level I have both a vote and a voice.

This is the problem with these discussions. There just aren't enough words to differentiate what we're talking about.

When I say we can't live without government, but we can live without a State, I'm using two very specific definitions. In this case, "government" is the act of regulating behavior and protecting rights. When folks argue that anarchy (absence of government) leads to chaos, they're conflating government-as-regulatory-force with government-as-institution.

So I attempted to differentiate the two by calling government-as-institution the "State" (capital S intentional, to differentiate between the colloquial term for a subdivision of the American form of government and the more generic government-as-institution). Unfortunately, the differentiation was apparently lost in translation (my posts have a tendency to come out in Swahili on the other end, it appears), which leads us to the present condition of talking about two entirely different things. So again, as one Apple engineer put it, there just aren't enough words for "thing".

Back to my original post, my point was that we cannot live without some force protecting rights and preventing (or at least retaliating against) anti-social behavior, but we can live without the professional institution that purports to fulfill that need. It's my position that the free market, with rights based on and founded in property, can fulfill the need without the geopolitical monopoly on force that is government-as-institution, or "government" as it is generally called.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is the problem with these discussions. There just aren't enough words to differentiate what we're talking about.

When I say we can't live without government, but we can live without a State, I'm using two very specific definitions. In this case, "government" is the act of regulating behavior and protecting rights. When folks argue that anarchy (absence of government) leads to chaos, they're conflating government-as-regulatory-force with government-as-institution.

So I attempted to differentiate the two by calling government-as-institution the "State" (capital S intentional, to differentiate between the colloquial term for a subdivision of the American form of government and the more generic government-as-institution). Unfortunately, the differentiation was apparently lost in translation (my posts have a tendency to come out in Swahili on the other end, it appears), which leads us to the present condition of talking about two entirely different things. So again, as one Apple engineer put it, there just aren't enough words for "thing".

Back to my original post, my point was that we cannot live without some force protecting rights and preventing (or at least retaliating against) anti-social behavior, but we can live without the professional institution that purports to fulfill that need. It's my position that the free market, with rights based on and founded in property, can fulfill the need without the geopolitical monopoly on force that is government-as-institution, or "government" as it is generally called.

I won't say "Never", but I think human nature and the circumstances under which we exist mitigate against your "propertarian government". Without starting over in isolation with a group of like-minded individuals, I don't see any way to ingrain such a philosophy in enough people at once to be viable in the face of all the would-be emperors and bureaucrats and warlords in the rest of the world. They'd invade and kill (not conquer) you "for your own good".

 

[PatriotPride]

^this^ You take a nation of our size and natural resources. If we had no Military and Law enforcement to protect us. Even with us owning a lot of firearms. A stronger nation is likely to invade us.

I agree with one difference. We NEED the military. I'm convinced that we don't NEED law enforcement. It can be a good thing to have (when it's actually working properly), but I'd prefer to see more self-reliance and responsibility from people. We're taught to rely on police and just call 911 and sit around with our thumb up our bum and wait for the "professionals". Yet another aspect of the downward spiral of the country.

 

[Fletch]

I won't say "Never", but I think human nature and the circumstances under which we exist mitigate against your "propertarian government". Without starting over in isolation with a group of like-minded individuals, I don't see any way to ingrain such a philosophy in enough people at once to be viable in the face of all the would-be emperors and bureaucrats and warlords in the rest of the world. They'd invade and kill (not conquer) you "for your own good".

We'll just have to disagree as to their potential for success.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Any "society" is going to have some type of government, even in total anarchy. There will be sects or groups of people. They don't just exist by themselves and there has to be some form of leadership, a warlord or dictator, if you will, who establishes rules by which the sect or group must abide. It would probably fall back to some type of feudal system.

 

[Fletch]

Any "society" is going to have some type of government, even in total anarchy. There will be sects or groups of people. They don't just exist by themselves and there has to be some form of leadership, a warlord or dictator, if you will, who establishes rules by which the sect or group must abide. It would probably fall back to some type of feudal system.

I disagree that there has to be leadership. Just because it generally happens does not mean that it must necessarily exist.