Thread: Is anarchy a good idea? How could it work?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not guaranteed. What should happen if he doesn't?

Then he would be fenced in.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What would they be willing to tolerate? Do you see a possibility that somebody wouldn't agree to it?

I have no idea what these imaginary people would be willing to tolerate. Certainly it is possible that someone would not agree to it. Then that person would stand aside.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is generally resources, including land itself, that rulers are after. Every piece of land on this planet was taken over by a government at some point. Most of the land has been taken over by multiple governments.

Yes, of course it is generally ressources, rulers are after. That's what they use the power structures to obtain.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Suppose that the hypothetical I described really happened, all the way to the end. At that point, how should it be handled?

No I won't suppose it, because I don't agree with the premise (the imaginary development you created). I don't subscribe to any "town hall meeting" type of anarchy; my guess is that such a form of anarchy would only work in fairly small (and probably geographically isolated) societies.

Originally Posted by Descensus

My sole contribution to this thread will be this post.

Look, the appropriate definition of anarchism wholly depends on who you're talking to. UM dropped the ball by not defining anarchism in any particular way. You wouldn't use your grandmother's definition (it's ruthless chaos!) when speaking to somebody who really digs Kropotkin (anarcho-communism) or David Friedman (anarcho-capitalism). What exactly are you talking about? Which kind of anarchy does the scenario given in the OP best match to? Define your terms before continuing.

Read carefully:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Anarchy is the absence of government.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This thread is about not having a government and how things could work in such a situation.

I also told a story to illustrate a specific type of system that could exist in an anarchist society. It would be a clusterfuck. What do you propose?

Originally Posted by Descensus

Never mind the fact that I've been around the block with you on this topic more than once. You're just going to have to accept that I don't think you're worth it.

Am I the only person posting in this thread? Am I the only person reading it?

The truth is that you cannot explain in specific terms how police, courts, lawmaking bodies, and military could be functional and effective if they were private. You said they should be private, but you have never explained how that could work in anything better than extremely general terms.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Then he would be fenced in.

He can't knock the fence down?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I have no idea what these imaginary people would be willing to tolerate. Certainly it is possible that someone would not agree to it. Then that person would stand aside.

So is it the might or the majority that makes right? Is the might or the majority ever evil?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Yes, of course it is generally ressources, rulers are after. That's what they use the power structures to obtain.

Exactly. So rulers want land. That is a common reason for military invasion.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

No I won't suppose it, because I don't agree with the premise (the imaginary development you created). I don't subscribe to any "town hall meeting" type of anarchy; my guess is that such a form of anarchy would only work in fairly small (and probably geographically isolated) societies.

You don't have to subscribe to the town hall philosophy. If others do, they will have town meetings. What I described is a possibility.

What should an anarchist society do when rival groups within it are fighting over conflicting philosophies of justice?

What should an anarchist society do about an invading military?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He can't knock the fence down?

Sure he can. That changes nothing; they could simply build it better next time. What are you driving at?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So is it the might or the majority that makes right? Is the might or the majority ever evil?

Right or wrong is not decided by might or majority; it is a personal matter of ethics. There is no universal right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Exactly. So rulers want land. That is a common reason for military invasion.

No rulers don't want land itself; they want the produce of the land. And they don't want to be the ones working the land. Give a ruler the choice between getting the land, or getting the tax revenue, the choice will be to get the tax revenue. It's mucher simpler to enrich yourself, if someone else is doing all the work for you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What should an anarchist society do when rival groups within it are fighting over conflicting philosophies of justice?

What should an anarchist society do about an invading military?

Society shouldn't do a thing. The people might want to do something, and whatever they do should be their own choice.

If a military force invades, then I suggest that the people beat them up severely (actually, their appointed agents would do it for them), if the military force is actually trespassing. As long as it is not trespassing, they should do nothing but observe and prepare for self defence.