The merits of an anarchistic society

[TakeAStepBack]

Good luck on returning to a concept that has been steamrolled. Let me know how that works out for you. it'll never happen. I'd love for it to be true, but it isnt and it wont.

Governments as a total concept is a failure at securing rights. Whether it's because the concept is not sound, or those weilding it deviate, is irrelevant.

As for Somalia, there are benefits to it the same as anythign else. There are also drawbacks. The point, again for the second time, was to show that anarchy can be sustained longer than a previous posters assertion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good luck on returning to a concept that has been steamrolled. Let me know how that works out for you. it'll never happen. I'd love for it to be true, but it isnt and it wont.

Governments as a total concept is a failure at securing rights. Whether it's because the concept is not sound, or those weilding it deviate, is irrelevant.

As for Somalia, there are benefits to it the same as anythign else. There are also drawbacks. The point, again for the second time, was to show that anarchy can be sustained longer than a previous posters assertion.

A people who govern themselves CAN and DID secure rights, however, and it worked beautifully. But a people governing themselves, as the Founders set it up, is NOT anarchy. And I will fight as hard against you guys who don't want ANY rules as hard as I will against those who want total control.

Anarchy can be sustained indefinitely. But of ALL systems by which to live, it is the least desirable and has the least to commend it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It worked. Past tense. Doesn't work any longer. Hence its abject failure. No one suggested what the Founders put in place was anarchy. Not in the least. You can go ahead and fight as hard as you like against something that is merely conceptual under the current circumstances. It seems pointless, but all means. Indulge yourself.

It's less desirable to whom? To Statists? I suppose you have a solid point there.

 

[arKangel]

And socialism rears its head.

I live in a private community.
We built our own road, and our own bridge. It was actually quite fun when we paved the road last spring, great Bar-b-Que when we were done.

Police officers are not allowed in the community without direct permission from a resident.
Interestingly enough we have no crime... no police = no crime.

Interesting. How large is your community? Do all inhabitants work within the community?

I suppose you could say the private neighborhood is small. We have a mix of retirees, veterans, a few financially fortunate families, some financially unfortunate families and the homes for unwed mothers. About a couple dozen or so houses all said and done. Very rural.

"Work" is a subjective term sometimes. All young men are not required by any sort of written law to help around the community... yet when the annual road repair is posted, they all show up. Funny how people who aren't forced do things will gladly help out when it is a matter of honor, isn't it?

Yeah, some of the vets and the retirees can't physically help in the manual projects, but they help in other ways. No one is forced to do anything, no one has to be forced to do anything.




What some on this thread are failing to realize is that anarchy means no government, it does not mean no law.
That said, we do have rules for the neighborhood, both written and unwritten, all of which are held by the honor of the word, not some jackass who claims to be the authority.

Would every single one of these rules work universally? Probably not, with all things considered. Laws are a community by community thing.

You do not need government to have law, you only need honorable people. Matter of fact, honorable people are the antithesis of "government".




To who claim that "anarchy can't work" fail to realize that millions of individuals live day to day without a hoot for your thug "government", and will continue to do so forever, we always have. We are eternal, your government will only last until another one of your rigged elections, or until you all kill each other in one of your stupid wars.

 

[arKangel]

To those who say ignorant things like "anarchy never lasts"...

Idiots, family law always supersedes your hatred. The word has survived countless "governments", it will outlast all of them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good luck on returning to a concept that has been steamrolled. Let me know how that works out for you. it'll never happen. I'd love for it to be true, but it isnt and it wont.

Governments as a total concept is a failure at securing rights. Whether it's because the concept is not sound, or those weilding it deviate, is irrelevant.

As for Somalia, there are benefits to it the same as anythign else. There are also drawbacks. The point, again for the second time, was to show that anarchy can be sustained longer than a previous posters assertion.

Likely because that was never government’s role.

It’s the fundamental nature of government to acquire more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty. Government is forever probing the Constitutional edifice to find and exploit weaknesses.

That’s why our civil liberties are secured by the rule of law, not the government.

The Constitution in the context of its case law countervails government excess, places restrictions on government, and affords the people a venue to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ideally government would understand the Founding Document and its case law and seek to function within its Constitutional limits.

Needless to say, for reasons mostly partisan, this is often not the case; hence the wisdom of the Framers to create a Republic, where its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men.

What’s interesting with regard to the anarchist ‘paradigm’ is that there is little, if any, reference to a judiciary. It would seem the anarchist ‘state’ will be free of crime and in no need of punishment, neither conflict nor controversy will manifest, and no faction will ever attempt to gain the advantage and acquire greater control.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Likely because that was never government’s role.

It’s the fundamental nature of government to acquire more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty. Government is forever probing the Constitutional edifice to find and exploit weaknesses.

That’s why our civil liberties are secured by the rule of law, not the government.

The Constitution in the context of its case law countervails government excess, places restrictions on government, and affords the people a venue to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ideally government would understand the Founding Document and its case law and seek to function within its Constitutional limits.

The governments role is to uphold the rule of law. But that rule of law can be changed by the whims of men. Mostly DUE to case law and SCOTUS ruling. In the US anyway. The problem is more often than not, they rule in favor of themselves at the expense of individual liberties and rights. The government officials take an oath to uphold the constitution, and in so, they are suppose to be the protector of the individuals rights.

That doesn't happen. Not ideally, or otherwise. So, yes. Government is a failure at both protecting rights and upholding the constitution.

It's an abject failure.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What’s interesting with regard to the anarchist ‘paradigm’ is that there is little, if any, reference to a judiciary. It would seem the anarchist ‘state’ will be free of crime and in no need of punishment, neither conflict nor controversy will manifest, and no faction will ever attempt to gain the advantage and acquire greater control.

Sure there is. In most instances the role of judicial is placed into the hands of private entities and citizens to arbitrate dispute. As opposed to a monopoly of the rule of law by one entity.

An Anarchist Theory of Criminal Justice (Coy McKinney) | The Anarchist Library

 

[Asclepias]

Humans are the most contradictory species on the planet. We live in social groups but our brains make us crave individual liberty. At any point in time our personal wishes can go against whats is in the best interest of the common good. Government is an attempt to try balance that paradox. Any community that believes in anarchy will most likely cease to exist in a very short span of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Humans are the most contradictory species on the planet. We live in social groups but our brains make us crave individual liberty. At any point in time our personal wishes can go against whats is in the best interest of the common good. Government is an attempt to try balance that paradox. Any community that believes in anarchy will most likely cease to exist in a very short span of time.

Humans, however, have quite capably lived in social groups while respecting and defending individual liberty. All that is required is to understand what natural aka God given aka unalienable rights are: i.e. that which requires no contribution or participation by any other.

That is why forced welfare--that which robs Peter to pay Paul--is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. And why there can be no unalienable right to housing, food, clothing, shelter, or healthcare. For government to guarantee such things to anybody is to take liberty from somebody else and diminish liberty for all.

To CHOOSE or AGREE to cooperate with others, at a personal cost to oneself, is also what freedom looks like. But it must always be voluntary and not what somebody else demands of you.

Anarchy is the antithesis of freedom because, like authoritarian government, it recognizes no unalienable rights and would also deny the people the ability to enter voluntarily into a formal social contract.

A goverment of the people, by the people, for the people and directed by the people as to what it is supposed to do can protect and defend unalienable rights. and did so until Teddy Roosevelt dismantled that concept and subsequent political leaders too quickly became addicted to government power at the expense of the liberties of the people. Roosevelt was so popular as a President, the people trusted him to be honorable and failed to see what was happening until it was too late.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy is the antithesis of freedom because, like authoritarian government, it recognizes no unalienable rights and would also deny the people the ability to enter voluntarily into a formal social contract.

False. Anarchists most certainly do recognize people's rights. Not all anarchists are created equal in philosophy. The same as any other. But, ALL brands of anarchists I've encountered generally fall into the same two paradigms we see today. Socialist, or individual. As someone of the individual persuasion, the right to private property and self ownership are hallmarks of the anarcho -capitalist. They believe in natural law foundations, the right to be left unmolested by others in any form, the king of ones own person and effects, and the ability to peacefully exchange with anyone they please as long as the exchange is mutual consent.

It sounds like you don't understand anarchy at all besides a few movies you've seen where the Statists portray it as complete chaos and violence. With buildings burnign down, and food only available from dumpsters.

Which is of course, exactly what the Statists want others to mentally picture so they can get the typical kneejerk reaction;

Anarchy = Doom.

It's a load of tripe, but its the same sort of proper information battle libertarians fight today as well regarding their philosophy.

 

[PaulS1950]

Family rule only works when the rule of law is accentuated with love. That rarely works in a large society.

Anarchy is when the strongest rule over those weaker - no rule of law because the strongest person (people) decide to whom the laws actually apply and under what conditions. That is why it generally evolves into an oligarchy.

Any form of rule that provides freedoms and rights must make those freedoms and rights equally protected for all the citizens at all times. There must be laws that are equally applicable to all, all the time. There must be protections for those same people from false accusations and a manner in which to judge fairly for all, all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

Anarchy is the antithesis of freedom because, like authoritarian government, it recognizes no unalienable rights and would also deny the people the ability to enter voluntarily into a formal social contract.

False. Anarchists most certainly do recognize people's rights. Not all anarchists are created equal in philosophy. The same as any other. But, ALL brands of anarchists I've encountered generally fall into the same two paradigms we see today. Socialist, or individual. As someone of the individual persuasion, the right to private property and self ownership are hallmarks of the anarcho -capitalist. They believe in natural law foundations, the right to be left unmolested by others in any form, the king of ones own person and effects, and the ability to peacefully exchange with anyone they please as long as the exchange is mutual consent.

It sounds like you don't understand anarchy at all besides a few movies you've seen where the Statists portray it as complete chaos and violence. With buildings burnign down, and food only available from dumpsters.

Which is of course, exactly what the Statists want others to mentally picture so they can get the typical kneejerk reaction;

Anarchy = Doom.

It's a load of tripe, but its the same sort of proper information battle libertarians fight today as well regarding their philosophy.

I always thought that anarchy was the absence of government? In the absence of government wont human nature result in chaos and.....doom?

 

[PaulS1950]

Anarchy is not an absence of government - it is the absence of law.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Jeebus, i just got through saying that anarchists, especially those of the individual variety, believe in natural law foundations. it is the absence of FORMAL government. As in a central monopolistic one over the use of force and violence.

Anarchy is when the strongest rule over those weaker - no rule of law because the strongest person (people) decide to whom the laws actually apply and under what conditions. That is why it generally evolves into an oligarchy.

That's sound like what we have here in the US of A, and it aint anarchy. In fact, that's EXACTLY how it works here. Are you sure you're not getting your wires crossed?

 

[Asclepias]

Anarchy is not an absence of government - it is the absence of law.

Would you show me where you got your definition? All my sources contradict what you are saying.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Foxfyre]

Anarchy is not an absence of government - it is the absence of law.

Would you show me where you got your definition? All my sources contradict what you are saying.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's a Catch 22 or chicken and egg kind of thing. Law with no authority to enforce it is an expectation rather than law--so you can't have law without some form of government. And you can't have a government without law. Even your linked definition backs up the concept.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Anarchy is not an absence of government - it is the absence of law.

Would you show me where you got your definition? All my sources contradict what you are saying.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's a Catch 22 or chicken and egg kind of thing. Law with no authority to enforce it is an expectation rather than law--so you can't have law without some form of government. And you can't have a government without law. Even your linked definition backs up the concept.

Strange. it happened often in colonial times. Common law prevailed. No formal government. People who stole, nurdered, etc, were dealt with by the community. So there was law, and there was enforcement of it. At the same time, there was no formal government.

Amazing!

 

[PaulS1950]

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government


A state of lawlessness - without laws there can be no freedom for those less powerful that others. If I want your home I just kick you out or kill you. Since there are no laws (by definition) then I haven't committed a crime.

In a perfect world, with perfect people anarchy would have a chance for success, but then so would communism. We don't have perfect people and our world is certainly less than perfect. That is why "Utopian" concepts fail.

You need to have the rule of law administered with checks and balances to keep it fair to all and not just favor the powerful few.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you show me where you got your definition? All my sources contradict what you are saying.

Anarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It's a Catch 22 or chicken and egg kind of thing. Law with no authority to enforce it is an expectation rather than law--so you can't have law without some form of government. And you can't have a government without law. Even your linked definition backs up the concept.

Strange. it happened often in colonial times. Common law prevailed. No formal government. People who stole, nurdered, etc, were dealt with by the community. So there was law, and there was enforcement of it. At the same time, there was no formal government.

Amazing!

It doesn't have to be written down. If the community enforced the laws they expected to be followed, there WAS government. Maybe not an official one, but one that was recognized by all just the same. Anarchy however does not protect the rights of the weak but allows the strongest to prevail whether that be for good or for bad. It is the way of the wild beast and to the victor go the spoils.

Humankind via social contract found a way in the original U.S. Constitution to protect the weak while not inhibiting the more industrious, creative, innovative, brave to move society forward as the society chose to do. But without protection of those unalienable rights, there would not have been the progress, prosperity, innovation, creativity, and/or benevolence that American people inevitably produce given the liberty and time to accomplish their goals.

It was a government given its power by the people rather than the government assigning the rights to the people.

And it was not anarchy or anything close to that.