Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
😂 It wouldn't be me or you I'd worry about.Also not my point. To maintain anarchy there must be no government, to maintain that people have to be prevented from making one. Thus bringing back your "involuntary contract enforced by violence or imprisonment".
If you don't force people to be anarchists eventually some of them will organize for personal defense against their (presumably not suicidally pacifist) neighbors. Such defense works best through top down authority, groups cannot make snap decisions at all. Some one will realize that "hey we'd be idiots not to do this before our neighbors try it" which later leads to "hey this can lead to profit" yadda yadda yadda and anarchy collapses into militarism.
Pure anarchy is a house of cards at the best of times. The simple ability to cause harm (the act is unneeded) eventually forms military tribes out of the people who have even a few emotions. Sure, if we assume that everyone is rational anarchy is great, but at that point so is communism.
Or for the TL;DR folks, I'd argue that "prisoner's dilemma" type problems would ultimately (but not immediately) force people into alliances that would grow into governments.
indeed
crazy that it isn't the moderate "Burke Conservatism" or "Pragmatism" that I identify with that people seem to want to argue with me about. I agree, there are really no plausible "theories" of anarchy. There are examples of things that work, but for the most part, the type of social experimentation that would be required to see how one could work is destroyed by more militant communities. I'd never deny the ability of a highly structured society to do violence against other, less structured, societies.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Police. Taxation. Military. Utility Companies.To some people any or all of those can be looked at as ongoing reigns of terror.
you can cut the hyperbole with a knife!