Anarchy, Government & The Social Contract

[Avatar]

You could have something there...the initial period of chaos is a perfect time for somebody else to step in and try and exert power.

--A

[Tjol]

You could have something there...the initial period of chaos is a perfect time for somebody else to step in and try and exert power.

--A

And too often, historically, the whole purpose of anarchy was simply to set the stage for someone to step in and exert power. That's always the fear I think one has to have for anarchy. Even if you want a blank slate, you have to ask yourself who is now going to have a chance to fill the blank slate now that you've washed it clean.

[Vraith]

You could have something there...the initial period of chaos is a perfect time for somebody else to step in and try and exert power.

--A

And too often, historically, the whole purpose of anarchy was simply to set the stage for someone to step in and exert power. That's always the fear I think one has to have for anarchy. Even if you want a blank slate, you have to ask yourself who is now going to have a chance to fill the blank slate now that you've washed it clean.

What's the old quote "Revolutions usually don't create better gov't, only different gov't" or somesuch?

[Orlion]

You could have something there...the initial period of chaos is a perfect time for somebody else to step in and try and exert power.

--A

And too often, historically, the whole purpose of anarchy was simply to set the stage for someone to step in and exert power. That's always the fear I think one has to have for anarchy. Even if you want a blank slate, you have to ask yourself who is now going to have a chance to fill the blank slate now that you've washed it clean.

What's the old quote "Revolutions usually don't create better gov't, only different gov't" or somesuch?

I think it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Vraith]

yep, that too.

[Rawedge Rim]

I think that if these various groups would grow up and realize that "Utopia" does not, and cannot exist, then they can get on with making things better.

Anarchy sounds fine, except that it won't work with large numbers of real human being.

Communism sounds fine, except that it doesn't work well with large numbers of human beings (the higher ups become very corrupt and live lavishly, while the "prol's" do minimal work for minimal return, with no incentive to do better)

[Orlion]

I think that if these various groups would grow up and realize that "Utopia" does not, and cannot exist, then they can get on with making things better.

Anarchy sounds fine, except that it won't work with large numbers of real human being.

Communism sounds fine, except that it doesn't work well with large numbers of human beings (the higher ups become very corrupt and live lavishly, while the "prol's" do minimal work for minimal return, with no incentive to do better)

'Utopia' actually means nowhere. However, that doesn't mean that we can not have an asymptotic* relationship with it

Anarchy could work with large numbers of real human beings, IMO... but in the state we have now, it's probably more realistic that, as you've stated, Anarchy could only survive on the small scale, not because it's inapplicable, but because government naturally likes to cage up mankind and take away their liberties, having a group of anarchists would be an affront to it.


*In mathematics, an asymptote is a value that a curve may approach closer to but never, ever reach.

[Tjol]

Pluralism, and limited government... are the closest everyone gets to utopia. Mind you, if your utopia comes with a bunch of people who do all the work, while you collect all the money... you can't get that kind of utopia in a limited government pluralist kind of society.

[Rawedge Rim]

I think that if these various groups would grow up and realize that "Utopia" does not, and cannot exist, then they can get on with making things better.

Anarchy sounds fine, except that it won't work with large numbers of real human being.

Communism sounds fine, except that it doesn't work well with large numbers of human beings (the higher ups become very corrupt and live lavishly, while the "prol's" do minimal work for minimal return, with no incentive to do better)

'Utopia' actually means nowhere. However, that doesn't mean that we can not have an asymptotic* relationship with it

Anarchy could work with large numbers of real human beings, IMO... but in the state we have now, it's probably more realistic that, as you've stated, Anarchy could only survive on the small scale, not because it's inapplicable, but because government naturally likes to cage up mankind and take away their liberties, having a group of anarchists would be an affront to it.


*In mathematics, an asymptote is a value that a curve may approach closer to but never, ever reach.

No, I'm afraid that Anarchy cannot work with large numbers of real human beings, unless you can figure out a way to make all human being behave and believe in fundamentally the same way.

Government doesn't like to do anything. Government is "people" exercising the authority that other people let it exercise. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who gravitate to government so that they can exercise thier will upon others, or to fulfill and agenda at the expense of others.

[Avatar]

They don't have to believe or behave in the same way, any more than people under any other system do. All they have to have is self-interest, and all we need to do is create an environment under which self-interest is mutual.

But I concede that people aren't likely to be able to deal with it. Now or maybe even ever.

--A

[Tjol]

If everyone has guns in an anarchy, as an example, self interest eventually causes anarchy to be a pretty respectful existence. Something that truely equalises everyone in application, and everyone with the same amount of access, or at least enough access that you and a neighbor can team up if you're outmatched by some quickdraw from another state.

[Avatar]

An armed society is a polite society, I've always said.

--A

[hierachy]

Given a power vacuum, anarchy would probably lead to gang rule... with the prevailing gang eventually becoming the new state.

Sustainable, peaceful anarchy is a matter not of politics, but of psychology.

[Orlion]

Given a power vacuum, anarchy would probably lead to gang rule... with the prevailing gang eventually becoming the new state.

Sustainable, peaceful anarchy is a matter not of politics, but of psychology.

I'd replace gang with tribal, but they're nearly the same, it would seem like I'm only nitpicking

Psychology would pay a very important role in maintating an anarchic society, and the ability of the individual members to prevent any power hungry douche.

[wayfriend]

If everyone has guns in an anarchy, as an example, self interest eventually causes anarchy to be a pretty respectful existence.

After how many people die?

All the real world examples of anarchy or near-anarchy I have heard of have not tended towards peace and respect. Can anyone think of one that has?

Another problem with anarchy is that the tendency would be away from rather than towards cooperation of large numbers of people. (Laws and Regulation enable such things.) So there'd be no scientific advancement, no mass production, no significant construction, etc.

[Avatar]

After how many people die?

All the people who don't have the wit or manners to get along with their fellow members of society.

All the real world examples of anarchy or near-anarchy I have heard of have not tended towards peace and respect. Can anyone think of one that has?

Anarcho-Syndicalist Spain, 1936-1939.

Another problem with anarchy is that the tendency would be away from rather than towards cooperation of large numbers of people. (Laws and Regulation enable such things.) So there'd be no scientific advancement, no mass production, no significant construction, etc.

It's possible, but it's also possible to achieve things without regulation being necessary. As I understand it, under the form which Spain used successfully, scientists or engineers or inventors would in theory band together and offer their services or inventions or discoveries in exchange for what they wanted or needed.

--A

[Tjol]

Given a power vacuum, anarchy would probably lead to gang rule... with the prevailing gang eventually becoming the new state.

Sustainable, peaceful anarchy is a matter not of politics, but of psychology.

But with guns, gangs can only bully so many people. Even if person A is a better gunslinger then person B... person A is not bulletproof, so person C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,etc. are going to keep him in check.

The key in anarchy is that everyone has some easy and near equal access to power.

[Tjol]

If everyone has guns in an anarchy, as an example, self interest eventually causes anarchy to be a pretty respectful existence.

After how many people die?

How many people die under Socialism? Capitalism? Military Dictatorship?

It's important to have ideals. But one also has to consider what's actually available and compare and contrast and determine what's less awful, being that there isn't any perfect available.

All the real world examples of anarchy or near-anarchy I have heard of have not tended towards peace and respect. Can anyone think of one that has?

As I mentioned. But if we play the same game some play with Marcism, I'll just claim that Anarchy hasn't ever actually been realised. Granted you might respond that anarchy is just as agreeable with human nature as marxism is. I wouldn't argue with you there either.

Another problem with anarchy is that the tendency would be away from rather than towards cooperation of large numbers of people. (Laws and Regulation enable such things.) So there'd be no scientific advancement, no mass production, no significant construction, etc.

Do large numbers of people cooperate under socialism, capitalism or military dictatorship?

[sindatur]

Tjol, what you say has merit, however, I'm placing my vote away from Anarchy, because I know better how to survive under Capitalism/Rep Democracy and I'm satisfied with my life as it is, but, under Anarchy, person X, Y, Z or AA, might take me out becuase they want something of mine, more then they are worried that person M, N, or P will kill them back (Even though they'll be dead, so will I and my loved ones will have to live through it). Of course this could happen under the current system, but, my instincts tell me it's more likely to occur under Anarchy, since I've been living in the ghetto for 9 years now.

[Orlion]

Tjol, what you say has merit, however, I'm placing my vote away from Anarchy, because I know better how to survive under Capitalism/fnord Democracy and I'm satisfied with my life as it is, but, under Anarchy, person X, Y, Z or AA, might take me out becuase they want something of mine, more then they are worried that person M, N, or P will kill them back (Even though they'll be dead, so will I and my loved ones will have to live through it). Of course this could happen under the current system, but, my instincts tell me it's more likely to occur under Anarchy, since I've been living in the ghetto for 9 years now.

And that's where Rational Anarchy comes in. As I view it, not everyone will want to live free of government, and just as I shouldn't be forced to live under the tyranny of government rule, I should not force someone out of that rule if they wish to live in it. I'm perfectly willing to allow you to live under democratic rule, especially if that's how you want and can live your life.

There are, of course, obvious practical objections to Rational Anarchy, the main one being that no government will want to allow any one to live in any state of anarchy. Nature abhors a vacuum and government loathes a man at liberty.