Originally posted by Bardock42
So wait, did we go from "Anarchy can't exist" to "Anarchy can't work", did we settle on that being anarchy then?
I'm willing to accept your idiom for the sake of simplicity.
You've said "an anarchist not-a-state is this". I disagree that it's not a state but that isn't germane to the discussion of it practicality.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm willing to accept your idiom for the sake of simplicity.You've said "an anarchist not-a-state is this". I disagree that it's not a state but that isn't germane to the discussion of it practicality.
Oh okay...yeah, I don't care for having that discussion. Toodles.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I guess it would be easier to conquer the anarchist state srug
almost assuredly
heaven forbid someone ascribe to a political philosophy that wants to do away with large scale violence as perpetrated by national actors, for interests that serve the rich, paid for by the dollars and bodies of the regular citizen, who has almost no role to play in the decisions about going to war, or those on the battlefield...
how silly of me to strive for this
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a pointless inclusive definition. I do think every state is a group, however I don't think every group is a state.
Originally posted by inimalist
if all the people who have a stake in the descision are involved in the process of regulation, who would need to be coerced?
See now I think this is the most insane sort of naivety that shows up in anarchist thought. You're assuming that either no one will ever disagree or no one will ever dislike the results of the groups decisions. I think the whole history of everything should disprove that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see why that would necessarily be true.
Their lack of guns.
Originally posted by inimalist
almost assuredlyheaven forbid someone ascribe to a political philosophy that wants to do away with large scale violence as perpetrated by national actors, for interests that serve the rich, paid for by the dollars and bodies of the regular citizen, who has almost no role to play in the decisions about going to war, or those on the battlefield...
how silly of me to strive for this
Originally posted by inimalist
almost assuredlyheaven forbid someone ascribe to a political philosophy that wants to do away with large scale violence as perpetrated by national actors, for interests that serve the rich, paid for by the dollars and bodies of the regular citizen, who has almost no role to play in the decisions about going to war, or those on the battlefield...
how silly of me to strive for this
The path to eliminating violence doesn't start with denying that it exists.
Originally posted by King Kandy
This is exactly what I think is a false premise in the way you're looking at things. There is no amorphous force that is "the state". The state is a collective of individuals. It only exists because it grows from functions we need to live as a group.
yes, but the criticism would be, why are these decisions made by someone who I don't know, probably didn't vote for, and almost certainly is more devoted to their political organization than to serving my interests?
Originally posted by King Kandy
There's no state in the world that provides nothing to its people, otherwise it never would have developed.
I don't argue that anarchy is the natural order of man. In fact, to make a workable anarchist state, modern governments would have to invest huge amounts of money into local infrastructure. That, or some very charitable corporations
Originally posted by King Kandy
The people being regulated have a stake; they don't want to be subject to regulation. Even if they're involved in the process, at some point their view will have to be overruled.
well, yes, not everyone gets their way, but the balance is, because all stakeholders are involved in the process, those who are regulated are served best by complying with the will of the regulators. Its like why GE will pay fines to the American government, even though they are big enough to ignore them if they wanted. I don't believe the profit motive is an absolute part of human nature, but even through that lens, it is easier for a business to make money when they aren't fighting against regulation, regardless of where it is coming from.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
See now I think this is the most insane sort of naivety that shows up in anarchist thought. You're assuming that either no one will ever disagree or no one will ever dislike the results of the groups decisions. I think the whole history of everything should disprove that.
I think it shows a lack of creativity on your part to think that a society couldn't enforce regulation over a business without a centralized authority.
Citizens have used collective action to change policy in both business and state institutions. If such collective action became the conflict resolution method, there is no reason to think it couldn't be effective.
Again, why does GE pay fines to the American gvt? do we really believe the CEO is afraid of legal reprecussions that threaten him?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The path to eliminating violence doesn't start with denying that it exists.
well, yes, but this is easily avoided by not being a revolutionary anarchist, and actually thinking about rational ways to get from point A to point B. "Burn all the guns" sounds as silly to me as it does to you.
However, change enough minds over enough time, and on a world-wide level begin to dismantle to tools of large scale military conflict? sure. Actually, I can't imagine this is a goal you even disagree with... you wouldn't prefer a world without war? as unlikely as it is, you don't think it is what we should work for?
Originally posted by King Kandy
People have a huge role in going to war. If people weren't okay with war, they could simply refuse to fight. Like you said, enough civil disobedience simply stops the state from functioning. People who aren't taking advantage of this are giving an implicit vote of approval.
people are psychologically coerced by all facets of our society to believe they have no choice, and the explicit threat of force the government has essentially forces compliance, even at the level of personal belief and identification. Anarchy sort of assumes that the things that make you and I skeptical individuals who would be willing to fight against injustice can become societal values.
I agree with you though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
...Why would they necessarily have less guns?
I thought this government wasn't able to coerce people. If they're coming up and threatening me with guns I'm going to feel (perhaps unjustly I don't know) that they're trying to coerce me.
Now the citizens might be armed but since they're not organized (if they were then they would be an organization with coercive power) so my organized army will beat them.
Originally posted by inimalist
I think it shows a lack of creativity on your part to think that a society couldn't enforce regulation over a business without a centralized authority.Citizens have used collective action to change policy in both business and state institutions. If such collective action became [b]the
conflict resolution method, there is no reason to think it couldn't be effective.[/B]
Reminds me of something I just read about John Carter of Mars. Everyone fights with swords because they've agreed that guns are unsporting. The lack of realism in that set up is obvious, and identical to the problem with a non-a-state that works on a purely voluntary basis. The moment a person realizes that they a) disagree with the rules and b) the people makes the rules can't stop them they will break the rules.
Once you someone starts enforcing the rules . . .
Originally posted by inimalist
However, change enough minds over enough time, and on a world-wide level begin to dismantle to tools of large scale military conflict? sure. Actually, I can't imagine this is a goal you even disagree with... you wouldn't prefer a world without war? as unlikely as it is, you don't think it is what we should work for?
Sure but that's a political platitude. In fact its one that everybody use. Intentionally or not it's simply a way to avoid having to establish any policies and/or get away from the flaws in them.
"Wouldn't a world without war be great?"
"Yeah!"
"Then you should be anarchist/democrat/republican/marxist/libertarian/satanist/christian/communist/militia-man/taoist/indigo-child because that's what we want."
"Cool!"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reminds me of something I just read about John Carter of Mars. Everyone fights with swords because they've agreed that guns are unsporting. The lack of realism in that set up is obvious, and identical to the problem with a non-a-state that works on a purely voluntary basis. The moment a person realizes that they a) disagree with the rules and b) the people makes the rules can't stop them they will break the rules.Once you someone starts enforcing the rules . . .
I guess we just disagree on this issue. I certainly don't think, in some absolute sense, one needs to enforce regulation with the threat of violence, and I think our modern society actually proves this, but fair enough. I don't have any more of a way to explain how anarchist regulation enforces compliance than I do democratic or whatever.
Compliance comes more from the actors accepting the system as is than from some cost/benefit argument where a CEO actually feels afraid to challange the state.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure but that's a political platitude. In fact its one that everybody use. Intentionally or not it's simply a way to avoid having to establish any policies and/or get away from the flaws in them."Wouldn't a world without war be great?"
"Yeah!"
"Then you should be anarchist/democrat/republican/marxist/libertarian/satanist/christian/communist/militia-man/taoist/indigo-child because that's what we want."
"Cool!"
ok, but "ending war" has hardly been something that I have touted as being the selling point of anarchy. Like, there are as many types of anarchy as there are anarchists, and the one I ascribe to sort of understands that the modern state can't not have an army until there is some worldwide political movement to slash military budgets.
I also understand that local economic interests and jobs created by the military industrial complex are among the largest stepping stones to this problem. Hence why I try to think of anarchist perspectives on modern politics, rather than advocating for some utopia. Sure, I do believe an anarchist society is possible, but we are so far away from it being logistically possible, that shorter term goals are essential.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but the criticism would be, why are these decisions made by someone who I don't know, probably didn't vote for, and almost certainly is more devoted to their political organization than to serving my interests?
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't argue that anarchy is the natural order of man. In fact, to make a workable anarchist state, modern governments would have to invest huge amounts of money into local infrastructure. That, or some very charitable corporations
I think anarchy can work, easily. But I don't think that most anarchists are actually on the right track towards producing such a change.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, yes, not everyone gets their way, but the balance is, because all stakeholders are involved in the process, those who are regulated are served best by complying with the will of the regulators. Its like why GE will pay fines to the American government, even though they are big enough to ignore them if they wanted. I don't believe the profit motive is an absolute part of human nature, but even through that lens, it is easier for a business to make money when they aren't fighting against regulation, regardless of where it is coming from.
In your case, the businesses have no motive because they lose nothing from defying the order and gain nothing from following it. There is literally no reason why they would comply. "Fighting" regulation implies there's some kind of power struggle, but your regulatory board has absolutely no power to enforce anything, and can't take place in a "fight" by definition.
Originally posted by inimalist
people are psychologically coerced by all facets of our society to believe they have no choice, and the explicit threat of force the government has essentially forces compliance, even at the level of personal belief and identification. Anarchy sort of assumes that the things that make you and I skeptical individuals who would be willing to fight against injustice can become societal values.I agree with you though.
Originally posted by inimalist
I hate to drop this, but:I disagree with your ontology. A system with no state can still have anti-monopolist regulation and consumer protections, they are just enforced through different mechanisms than the government. Preferably through distributed groups of interested parties, who would almost by definition be either a) much less accepting of bribery and b) would be much harder to bribe because of their distributed nature.
Which is such an extremely complex concept to wrap my mind around. (You'd think that quantum cryptography would give me more trouble, eh? 😛)
I have a real hard time understanding how that type of system would work. It would require a unison of interest groups, which is very contradictory. Then there's the problem of interest groups merging through common interests to resolve issues, which would fly directly in the face of such a social and governmental structure, to begin with. It's almost paradoxical, if time for such a structure is viewed in large chunks as "instants."
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see what's fundamentally different between a government and a strong enough group of independent regulators.
I know he answered already, but, to sum up: one is mandatory and one is voluntary. You can break those down into further philosophical constructs, if you want, but I think that would be missing the point.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think in a system where corporations are the greatest power, they would assume the function of the state and we might as well call them the state anyway. Whatever body has the most decision making power is the government in practice, whether this is wal-mart or the citizens councils you described.
This, I agree with. That's one of the reasons the "missing government" system is not really missing a government.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Then this forum is a state already, isn't it?
Eliminate the moderators and owners and make the rules a "social contract", and all of those that volunteer, pay for the site, then we have a much better definition for what inimalist was describing. There would be "cliques", still, and those cliques would be equal to the interest groups he spoke about.
It's similar to a wikipedia page without the admins...which happens for most wikipedia pages. The pages still get corrected by the community when someone trolls the pages. The system works and I think it's a good argument for why they system could work. Honestly, that's pretty much how you ran your website and it worked out, for the most part, just fine.
Originally posted by inimalist
very charitable corporations
I swear that that is an oxymoron.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know he answered already, but, to sum up: one is mandatory and one is voluntary. You can break those down into further philosophical constructs, if you want, but I think that would be missing the point.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I think that's a fictitious distinction. The state today is voluntary; it would not exist if people hadn't supported it every step of the way, and if people completely withdrew support it would cease to exist just the same.
If it is voluntary, I have a suggestion:
Do not pay any more taxes the rest of your life and come up with your own logical traffic rules of personal governance. Also, socialize all of your activities to your liking, meaning, take food when you are hungry, from anywhere, and offer it to those that are hungry around.
Etc.
Eventually, the organized state will disagree with you so much that you ability to be "volunteery" is removed.
What does this mean? One is forced and the other is voluntary.
You can choose not to voluntarily do some things, but the state will disagree and throw you in prison. In the anarachist society, it's not true. In fact, you may even be respected for disagreeing on some of the items in the "social contract".
That assumes, of course, an impossible to reach system of anarchy. It is a Utopia that I do not believe in and sometimes do not understand.