Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. If I felt there was little risk in theft or violence I would steal and I would hit people when they pissed me off, just like most people do when they see society fall apart around them. Spontaneous looting happens for a reason, IMO. The current systems is high risk, low return for violating someone else's morals unless you're very good at what you do.
why do you assume there would be no consequence to hurting someone else in an anarchist society.
Largely, I feel it might motivate people to not **** with each other too much, considering they can't go to the police for protection if a store owner wants to bash your face in, and the rest of the community thinks its a fair deal.
anarchy in the way I describe it does not involve a lack of social accountability
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At a certain level, I'm willing to agree. But I don't think that most people (or at least enough people) would inconvenience themselves to help someone else. I might pull a stranger out of a well but I wouldn't put together a fund to save everyone who was trapped somewhere.
my system wouldn't want you setting up a fund for people if you don't want to, it might have you participate in a fund that directly affects you, like community security and hospitals, I agree, I don't see why you should be interested in people over there. Also, given that I argue for sort of radical federalism, funding systems that have been shown to work without government would already be in place before government was removed, with ways to modify them if necessary. I may be a utopian, but I certainly am a pragmatist.
the altruism argument essentially is why I don't think you would murder people.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the wealthy would pay money to protect the poor? I suppose they'll be paying to uplift the disenfranchised so that they have equal opportunity to advance in society, too?
the hope is that the poor are not so terribly afflicted that they can't afford to protect themselves. Or, that systems not reliant on government are able to provide services to those least able to afford them.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't particularly like systems where you have to start by assuming people will be responsible all on their own.
strange, my thoughts are that personal responsibility is the most crucial part of a political system
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If.
hence why it is an ideology and not the science of anarchist society
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not on a large scale, at least not without an organization that can prevent monopolies. Anarchy and miniarchy don't allow for that much power to belong to any group.
if you replaced monopolies with market consolidation I would agree. Monopolies do not necessarily have to be negative in a free market. If competition has access to the market, it means the monopolizing company is providing the best product at the needed demand for the lowest price.
Look, obviously nothing is perfect. I also don't believe in a system where ideology replaces pragmatism. Anarchy may be an unreachable ideal, but certainly the idea that the state might act to give as much power to make decision to those most affected by them is certainly one, I think, deserves a try. Maybe in the end, the balance of power requires a state funded militia to keep the peace, or some government regulatory board to enforce contracts or have safety regulations, we are almost assuredly not to find out the way things are going however.