Government and Anarchism

[Phoenix Wright]

Screw the introduction of how I got the inspiration to create this topic.

Should government have authority over those who do not believe in government? Can anarchists have a society? Should we, as a world, give anarchists land to do so?

[Hero]

It's been a while since I last came here, but this post drew me back.

Anarchy, at the level of the individual, is impossible now. There are just too many people for them not too be ruled by someone. Think of the popular what-if scenario, what if the government were totally destroyed in a nuclear strike? Think about it: If contact outside your city was cut, and the legal structure of governance was crippled, who is being pressed down the most in the current power structure and stands to gain the most in the coming vacuum? The biggest ones are the big ethnic-regional gangs, and after them other big centralized organizations that command lots of local loyalty. And there's the foundation from which a new governing authority will arise.

Because there are too many people nowadays, that kind of depopulation scenario is the closest we could ever get to anarchy.

I don't believe anarchy could really ever sustain itself, either, although I admit I'm not an expert on every political philosophy and I'm sure your particular brand of anarchy is very sustainable/the best possible thing for all the people of the world.

[мпд]

It's been a while since I last came here, but this post drew me back.

Anarchy, at the level of the individual, is impossible now. There are just too many people for them not too be ruled by someone. Think of the popular what-if scenario, what if the government were totally destroyed in a nuclear strike? Think about it: If contact outside your city was cut, and the legal structure of governance was crippled, who is being pressed down the most in the current power structure and stands to gain the most in the coming vacuum? The biggest ones are the big ethnic-regional gangs, and after them other big centralized organizations that command lots of local loyalty. And there's the foundation from which a new governing authority will arise.

Because there are too many people nowadays, that kind of depopulation scenario is the closest we could ever get to anarchy.

I don't believe anarchy could really ever sustain itself, either, although I admit I'm not an expert on every political philosophy and I'm sure your particular brand of anarchy is very sustainable/the best possible thing for all the people of the world.

/thread

[Phoenix Wright]

I don't believe anarchy could really ever sustain itself, either, although I admit I'm not an expert on every political philosophy and I'm sure your particular brand of anarchy is very sustainable/the best possible thing for all the people of the world.

I was arguing with a friend, and I never spoke to him much until recently. This was part of my argument.

Who do you mean by "your"?

[Meteor]

Does anyone think true anarchism is ideal? Literally anything goes? Anyone I've met who seems to think so (and probably hasn't thought very hard) actually wants all the protection without the rules.

We could give anarchists some land, and then forcibly take it right back to make a point, I guess.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Meteor

[Phoenix Wright]

Does anyone think true anarchism is ideal? Literally anything goes? Anyone I've met who seems to think so (and probably hasn't thought very hard) actually wants all the protection without the rules.

We could give anarchists some land, and then forcibly take it right back to make a point, I guess.

Which doesn't make sense to me in the first place.

I don't think anarchism will work in any situation. A person's main priority is surviving, and I think historical evidence suggests that people will give up almost any right granted to them to preserve their life. Anarchism is an environment in which "the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I am a firm believer in having rights and I think the United States in particular has taken a turn for the worse. However, I also think a central power should be strong. So I suppose it's safe to say I lean towards a more "controlled society," but I'd like to retain the rights granted to me by my government.

Would I personally give up the rights granted to me in times of emergency? I dunno, as it truly depends on the situation. And I would also like it to be temporary but I just don't see that happening.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Rhythm]

I don't think Anarchism could work. It relies far too much on people's honesty. While some will do the right thing by others, most would give in to temptation and just do whatever the hell they want. Then people who have been wronged will take their revenge, then the original person will get back at them... It goes on.

I'm a fan of Liberalism; people are free to do what they can to reach their full potential, and the Government/authority is to step in whenever someone is stopping themselves or others from doing so.

That being said, Anarchism could work on a very small scale, in a town where everybody knows each other and wouldn't want to hurt each other anyway.

We could give anarchists some land, and then forcibly take it right back to make a point, I guess.

That sounds good to me. Then if/when it fails, they lose it, point proven.

But then, since all these people desire anarchy, they wouldn't be a true reflection of the whole population. They could just be on their best behaviour in the hopes of ditching the government for good. The only way that could work is if it was a random group of people, not just those who want anarchy, and see how it goes.

[Kanami]

Problem with those that support Anarchism is that they mistake it with Totalitarianism. Only in the latter they are always at the top. In which case they can do whatever they want without repercussion. Yet still be able to defend their own position were it ever threatened.

That being said, Anarchism could work on a very small scale, in a town where everybody knows each other and wouldn't want to hurt each other anyway.

Wouldn't work, even if such a town existed external bodies moving into the town may not feel the same way. Nevermind that people are susceptible to change and a loving couple may end up killing eachother just because they don't agree on whose turn it is to change the kids nappy.

[Dark Sage]

Agreed. I personally support just being given full rights and freedoms over anarchy. And I don't like the government getting in my business either. I prefer to be left alone by them.

[Hero]

Who do you mean by "your"?

I used "your" with a meaning like "whatever."

I am a firm believer in having rights and I think the United States in particular has taken a turn for the worse.

Here's where one of anarchy's big contradictions lies. If we're talking about "negative" rights, or freedoms from oppression, as in the Bill of Rights, a government isn't really necessary for their guarantee because by their nature they limit the government. But "positive" rights, like a right to health care or an implied right to not be endangered by foreign armies, are going to be thrown out the window if they don't have a structure behind them to coerce people into paying for their implementation.

Nevermind that people are susceptible to change and a loving couple may end up killing eachother just because they don't agree on whose turn it is to change the kids nappy.

And your story brings up another of those contradictions. It's one of the most traditional arguments against anarchy, actually it's present in the Bible where there are not a small numbers of stories, explicitly explicitly set in the time "before there were kings in Israel," which pretty much make that same argument, with people raping and dicing each other up for the lack of anything to stop them.

[Anti-Social Meta Knight]

Screw the introduction of how I got the inspiration to create this topic.

Should government have authority over those who do not believe in government? Can anarchists have a society? Should we, as a world, give anarchists land to do so?

I've thought this one over quite a bit, and it encounters the same issues encountered by literally any other form of government. In theory, anarchism is attractive in that it seems to offer absolute freedom to every member of the society in question. Technically speaking, this includes the inconvenient freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others, a liability whose presence can only reliably be eliminated by one of two things: a policing body, i.e. government, or altruism across the board. History has taught us, though, that human nature is such that this particular brand of altruism is not attainable by choice at this time. Maybe we'll get it in the future, but we haven't yet. Still, anarchism simply will not accommodate a population as big as ours unless every single human being works for the benefit of his or her race.

Incidentally, this system is what Marx and Hegel postulated with the Communist Manifesto. In its ideal form, communism would not require any government at all - everyone would choose to contribute to the system, thereby eliminating the need to police. This didn't happen, nor could it. One dissenter, one broken cog, is all that is needed to cause a system without government to crumble.

If the ideal form of anarchism could be achieved, then I would be in favor of it being achieved. At this point in human history, though, there is no means of accounting for the danger presented to such a system by something as simple as dissent. (Not to my knowledge, anyway.) At the risk of sounding fatalistic, until we can compensate for that danger outside of government, we need to keep this flawed policing stuff up.

tl;dr Anarchism works on paper. We screw it up in practice.

[Strawman]

My friend did his senior project on Anarchism and gave his presentation to a class I was in. I don't remember everything from it but I do remember the main reason why a lot of people don't think Anarchism would work. I think what he said was that people always say Anarchism is like against human nature sort of and that people couldn't ever work together like would be necessary. But then the only reason people think that is because what people view as "human nature" is really just a product of the society that we live in. So that if people could gradually switch from relying on a government and the way we currently live to an anarchist society, people would collectively develop a new mindset and basically switch from thinking how we live now is correct, to how we would be living then. At least I think that was one of his points, if that makes sense.

[The Thief's Assassin]

I believe it's almost like Communism in a way. It would be great if we could have a society with no need for authority but there is always those people who won't look out for everyone and do things that are harmful to others

[Zanarkin]

I believe it's almost like Communism in a way. It would be great if we could have a society with no need for authority but there is always those people who won't look out for everyone and do things that are harmful to others

Communism would be sharing things with everyone (If you ask me thats just horrible, a little competition between people and businesses is always good). An individual works for the community not just for himself, IIRC. In anarchism, you just do whatever you want (a horrible idea too, you can't have people just doing whatever they please. People need to be led, plus there are benefits of being under a goverment.)

[Snowy_One]

Anarchism is a gem that only works when there is only a small amount of people involved with no desire to hurt each other. One person might be able to have a successful Anarchy, but it would require of essence that they do everything themselves. Gather food, get water, build shelter, and so forth all on their own. However once you add in other people to the mix, the issue becomes clouded. A human being needs three things to survive. Food, water, and shelter. Which of the two gathers the food? The water? Who builds and/or maintains the shelter? At most you might get a small society of people held together by a common thread (family and faith being the two easiest), but the moment someone dissents from that dream, problems arise. Some people will think that it's easier to take from others instead of contributing, thusly resulting in conflict and fighting.

Even if there is no dissenters, eventually some people will become shelter builders, some people food gatherers, some water gatherers. Government will start to grow again. Eventually someone who doesn't fit into any of those three will come along. If he can't find some other way to contribute, he will either become a dead weight or forced to work one of the jobs. If he is dead weight, it's only a matter of time until others follow his example, so he must be exiled. In order for exile to work, the people must be united... which is a form of government. If he is made to work, someone will need to ensure that he is working instead of just sluffing... which is government.

There can be a low or minimal government, sure, but no matter what, once you move beyond a personal level, government will appear in some form. Honestly, it's not a bad thing. It is what ensures that the light turns on when we use it, that water flows, that bandits don't just steal all your stuff, and so-forth.

I'm pretty sure that isn't anything new though and others have said the same things already, just not in so many words.

[Celice]

Anarchy desires cooperation. That is the only real, necessary element that's missing. Too many people are conditioned, cultured, and innately dispositioned against that quality for it to easily work.

[Rewjeo]

if people could gradually switch from relying on a government and the way we currently live to an anarchist society, people would collectively develop a new mindset and basically switch from thinking how we live now is correct, to how we would be living then. At least I think that was one of his points, if that makes sense.

So basically instead of having a legal code we'd have a moral code? Which would inevitably end up being enforced in some way because there will always be someone who just doesn't care about "being a good person." Hmm, that sounds familiar.

[The Thief's Assassin]

end up being enforced in some way because there will always be someone who just doesn't care about "being a good person."

The main reason most societies have fallen

[Original Alear]

There is no such thing as a person who "doesn't care enough" about being a good person. Every single person is equally out for themselves and everyone else: this is why I've been trying to hammer in the self/other meltdown. I'm surprised people are still arguing about it on serenes forest. Do they have nothing else to do with their time?

EDIT: For anyone still reading,

I think that anarchy might work OK right now, but it would weaken our ability to move off the earth and forward, because it would be atavistic. What about that concept?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Loki Laufeyjarson

[Anouleth]

Dunbar's number: 150. That is the limit to the size of an anarchist collective. Beyond that, it will break down without a hierarchy.

[Original Alear]

Dunbar's number: 150. That is the limit to the size of an anarchist collective. Beyond that, it will break down without a hierarchy.

That's a nice idea. Of course, the very first paragraph of the wikipedia article states that that is far too specific, and that the number more generally may range up to 230. Moreover, Dunbar himself states that:

the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

Such vaguery ("Persistent" social relationship) is not useful, unless we have some sort of temporal understanding of what persistent is. Moreover, hierarchies always exist and are always in flux, so to simply say "it will break down without a hierarchy" is quite useless.

Anouleth, IMO you should stop trying to throw out one line answers and be useful at the same time. You can at least make a mockery of generating new ideas, you have always been an intelligent guy in the past on here in my experience and I don't see why you refuse to use that intelligence to do a little more than what you are doing. Of course, you are not required to read my posts, just as I am not required to read yours.

The attempt to define anarchy's limits are in clear violation of anarchy. Yes, technically anarchy demands only the abscence of a political authority, but if science is there to replace it then it is not really anarchy. The attempt to use science to understand or limit the potentialities of a system that requires that no potentialities define it is doomed to failure. Science cannot atone for its utter lack of leadership, its enslavement to politics which lead to the nuking, not once but twice - in impatience? - of Japan.

Science attempts to use a nonscientific language with unfixed meaning, english, in order to explain its ideas.