Why anarcism works

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
dantose said:
well currency wouldn't exist because some people would amass currency and use it to subjugate others. people would be motivated to work for the common good just like communism

Who would be the police? How would laws be enforced? I'm just confused how this would work
 

Matt

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
I see your points and agree, where to draw the line is most definitly a subjective question. I do belive that, under law, we ARE required to follow a "good" government, because it is doing what it is suppoused to, the idea is that if its a "bad" government, its up the the people to change it. Although i suppose that if i was a truely "good" (meaning perfect in this case) Government, there would be no desire to not follow it, but of course that can never happen.

Im not suggesting that I have any more idea than anyone else how to decide what is a good//bad government, just that i think thats the letter of the law.

-Matt
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
In response to the initial argument, it's got a logical fallacy in it. Something along the lines of just because parts of the whole have one quality does not mean that the whole has the same quality.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

In this case, it's coersion. Just because parts of the government use coersion making them "intrinsically bad" does not make the whole government intrinsically bad. So the argument breaks down.

Of course, I think history is a good indicator that anarchy won't work. But I suppose that's beside the point.
 

Pierrot le Fou

Diabloii.Net Member
Dross, that is libertarianism, and not anarchy. Anarchy cannot exist with a government of any sort, because any government, as has been indicated, has to coerce people which would in effect eliminate the whole concept of anarchy.

Anarchy comes from an-arkhos, an being 'not' arkhos being 'ruler'. No ruler. The absence of a ruler. If the government has no power, clearly it cannot govern, and it would have no point. The word, the very CONCEPT of the word contradicts the concepts you're proposing Dross...

And in Anarchy, as Locke points out, people would work for subsistence, until the motivated folk decide that it sucks that they could do 10 times better but can't store their goods over a long period of time and get any gain out of it, so they try to establish a currency. This benefits them by rewarding them for their work, while the good ol' other folk get to enjoy the fruits of their extra labour (because more production is better for the poor as well, because they can collect the scraps that fall by the wayside in such a system). This leads to orderly society and government, because without that control, you cannot maintain a currency system very effectively.
 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
Maybe I do, maybe I don't, but they only way you'll find out is if you try and remove them. :love:
 

Drosselmeier

Diabloii.Net Member
Pierrot le Fou said:
Dross, that is libertarianism, and not anarchy. Anarchy cannot exist with a government of any sort, because any government, as has been indicated, has to coerce people which would in effect eliminate the whole concept of anarchy.

Anarchy comes from an-arkhos, an being 'not' arkhos being 'ruler'. No ruler. The absence of a ruler. If the government has no power, clearly it cannot govern, and it would have no point. The word, the very CONCEPT of the word contradicts the concepts you're proposing Dross...
I´ll make this quick since I have to go to work in a few minutes.

Anarchism builds its governing on federation and voluntary participation, at least in one of its earlier forms as a political model. Even if the participation is voluntary there is still some coercion.

I´m aware of the etymology of the word.
That is the idea of anarchy though, not the political model(s). If you look up democracy in a dictionary the explanation given will not cover the whole reality of democracy. The definition Damascus posted is the idea of absolute anarchy, it is not a full account of any of the anarchist models.

What I´m saying is that there is a difference between absolute anarchy and the various anarchist political models.
No-rule in most anarchist models means no centralization of power, not no power being excerted.

The ideal end result of anarchism might be the end of all government and a blissfull earthly paradise. This is no different from people here saying that everyone should have an equal startingpoint and equal opportunity. Neither will ever happen, but they are ideals to be strived for to guide priorities.

 

Pierrot le Fou

Diabloii.Net Member
Then how is that anarchy? That sounds like Nozick's minimalist state, not anarchy. What's the difference between the two? Nozick's minimalist state is about having a minimal local government to take care of those things that people are unable to regulate between themselves. It grows out of necessity for a government, but remains minimal because it is localized. This sounds like what you're proposing.

Exactly how can a system called 'no rulers' essentially, have rulers in the form of a government? Even if the government is weak, it's still a government.
 

ScanMan

Diabloii.Net Member
Underseer said:
Then again, it's not hard to imagine times in history when we'd have been better off if more citizens decided to ignore bad decisions by bad governments (e.g. injecting syphilis into American citizens without their knowledge to carry out medical experiments [several died as a result of the experiments]).
If you're going to hammer on the goverment, at least get your facts right.

The subjects of the Tuskegee experiment were NOT infected with syphillis by the goverment. The government did a long term medical case study of a group of black men who were ALREADY infected with syphillis, but never informed them of their infections or offered them treatment.
 
ScanMan said:
If you're going to hammer on the goverment, at least get your facts right.

The subjects of the Tuskegee experiment were NOT infected with syphillis by the goverment. The government did a long term medical case study of a group of black men who were ALREADY infected with syphillis, but never informed them of their infections or offered them treatment.
This guy's right. They wanted to study the long term effects of what was at that time an incurable disease, and did so with what was at that time a disposable and already infected segment of the population. These guys ate free, had a place to stay, and got free medical care for everything but syphillis, so they were probably a lot better off than they otherwise would have been, being african americans from small-town Alabama in the 1930's.

It's probably a little ethically uncool sounding, but we have a lot of knowledge about long-term effects of diseases and limitations of the human body that we couldn't have gained without some thiings that are ethically uncool sounding.

Pierrot said:
And in Anarchy, as Locke points out, people would work for subsistence, until the motivated folk decide that it sucks that they could do 10 times better but can't store their goods over a long period of time and get any gain out of it, so they try to establish a currency. This benefits them by rewarding them for their work, while the good ol' other folk get to enjoy the fruits of their extra labour (because more production is better for the poor as well, because they can collect the scraps that fall by the wayside in such a system). This leads to orderly society and government, because without that control, you cannot maintain a currency system very effectively.
That essentially is eternally going to be the nail in the coffin for anarchy. If anyone wants to know what anarchy leads to, we have perfectly good historical precedence to examine. I'm pretty sure we didn't climb down from trees and land in pre-built societies.
 

Choogy

Diabloii.Net Member
So true anarchy is like true communism?
Good on paper but useless in the real world because you're involving people?
 
Top