Anarchy

[Aardvark]

And the sharing of one's belongings is an age-old friend maker.

 

 

The act of sharing is by definition voluntary. I CHOOSE to share.

 

In a society with no property rights i would have this choice taken away from me. And so i would not be able to gain good will through sharing, when people feel they have the right just to take what they want.

 

I may be a communal animal, but i don't want to have others feel they are automatically entitled to the fruits of my labour. That would offend against any concept of natural justice.

[Damion]

I may be a communal animal, but i don't want to have others feel they are automatically entitled to the fruits of my labour. That would offend against any concept of natural justice.

 

You would have the option of safeguarding your goods, if you so choose. I just don't think that would happen often.

[Aardvark]

You would have the option of safeguarding your goods, if you so choose. I just don't think that would happen often.

 

In that case you would recognise my property rights over my goods? Just trust to peoples communal spirit not to abuse those rights?

[Damion]

In that case you would recognise my property rights over my goods? Just trust to peoples communal spirit not to abuse those rights?

 

I would recognize your claim, out of respect, if I liked you. Back to the importance of being part of the community.

 

This is all theory, and I hate that. I'm trying to find anything like an example of anarchy in action... Thus the thread. I suppose the crowd here is more into current events than sociological studies.

[LucidDreamer]

It would be more work to not have a government and thus anarchy than it would be to have a government because it is man's natural disposition to organize himself and his community. Once a villain came by and rapped and pillaged an area a militia would form prevent if from happening again.

 

There are examples of semi-anarchys in history. How about the mountain men in America?

[Damion]

It would be more work to not have a government and thus anarchy than it would be to have a government because it is man's natural disposition to organize himself and his community. Once a villain came by and rapped and pillaged an area a militia would form prevent if from happening again.

 

It wouldn't be more work at all.

 

As for outside militia... A peaceful society with no central ideology wouldn't necessarily scream "invade me." Unless valuable minerals were found in the area you live or the areas around you were over-populated... I don't really see invasion as a problem. At least not military-campaign style. Perhaps slow encroachment.

 

There are examples of semi-anarchys in history. How about the mountain men in America?

 

Hm?

[jgerlica]

Perhaps we should move away from the Merriam Webster definition of anarchy, and look more closely at the ideology of Mikhail Bakunin, as that would be more closely aligned with the original post. "Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it."

[Damion]

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it."

 

This quote is now written on my book bag. Thank you.

[Sayonara]

Perhaps we should move away from the Merriam Webster definition of anarchy

I read that as "Perhaps we should move away from Merriam Webster definitions" and clapped.

[Aardvark]

This is all theory' date=' and I hate that. I'm trying to find anything like an example of anarchy in action.[/quote']

 

I don't think you will find any examples of your kind of anarchy in action.

 

However you might consider the early Cossacks society to be close (ish).

 

They lived in communual groups, decisions taken by popular acclaim, acting without formal leaders, holding goods in common within the group, having a fierce regard for every members equality, no one being able to set themselves up over the others.

 

 

In time this was corrupted, and they became, in effect, a priviledged caste of border guards/soldiers with a more rigid hiearchy, some Cossacks becoming wealthy and some becoming relatively poor. But for a long time the Cossacks symbolised equality and freedom.

 

Is that the sort of example you are looking for?

[Damion]

Is that the sort of example you are looking for?

 

Sounds like it. Did they have currency? Do you have any links?

 

I read that as "Perhaps we should move away from Merriam Webster definitions" and clapped.

 

Got anything in particular against Mr. Webster? (curiosity, not a challenge)

[Aardvark]

Sounds like it. Did they have currency? Do you have any links?

 

 

I don't know any links unfortunately, just know about them from reading.

 

They didn't issue their own currency, they did happily loot money and accept tribute from both Tatars and Muscovy. They were a fighting people in terms of external behaviour, only being genorous and sharing with each other.

 

Being stuck between Tatars and Muscovy, it really was a case of fight or die, they bought their liberty and held it with violence. Not so nice for you maybe, but realistic.

[Sayonara]

Got anything in particular against Mr. Webster? (curiosity, not a challenge)

The definitions in that dictionary are child-like and lacking in any insight when compared to other major dictionarys, such as Oxford or Collins.

[Ophiolite]

The definitions in that dictionary are child-like and lacking in any insight when compared to other major dictionaries, such as Oxford or Collins.

Well, it was designed for Americans! (Just joking guys)

[mattd]

I'm sure a good many of you have read Zenarchy by Kerry Thornley, but I thought I'd post the link anyways.

 

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/zenarchy.html

[chadn]

Aardvark:

That doesn't sound like anarchy, it sounds like a form of communism.

 

Maybe we need to take a closer look at our definitions. What exactly do you consider to be anarchy? It seems to be different from most concepts of that state of affairs.

 

Damion's definition of anarchy is correct. Think of anarchy as anti-government communists.

 

You're think more along the lines of Libertarianism.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark:

 

Damion's definition of anarchy is correct. Think of anarchy as anti-government communists.

 

You're think more along the lines of Libertarianism.

 

But he hasn't given any definition of anarchy, other than a brief quotation from a dictionairy. That's why i was asking him to clarify what exactly he meant by the use of that word.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark:

 

Damion's definition of anarchy is correct. Think of anarchy as anti-government communists.

 

You're think more along the lines of Libertarianism.

 

But he hasn't given any definition of anarchy, other than a brief quotation from a dictionairy. That's why i was asking him to clarify what exactly he meant by the use of that word.

[crapistan]

Government is simply a monopoly of force, how it came to be (Democratic or Despotic) is irrelevent. Anarchy is simply the lack of an entity with this characteristic.

 

Social systems can be included in this. Anti-Government Communists? Still a government! Many will argue true communism is true democracy. But there is still a monopoly of power! Rule by an angry mob. Ever hear of the Two Cows bit on explaining world politics/economics? How everyone votes to take your cows or they will kill you?

 

Hmmm... class warfare, somehow this sounds familiar. That sounds like the tactics of a recently failed canidate for the Dems. Aww shucks, I've already forgotten his name.

[crapistan]

Government is simply a monopoly of force, how it came to be (Democratic or Despotic) is irrelevent. Anarchy is simply the lack of an entity with this characteristic.

 

Social systems can be included in this. Anti-Government Communists? Still a government! Many will argue true communism is true democracy. But there is still a monopoly of power! Rule by an angry mob. Ever hear of the Two Cows bit on explaining world politics/economics? How everyone votes to take your cows or they will kill you?

 

Hmmm... class warfare, somehow this sounds familiar. That sounds like the tactics of a recently failed canidate for the Dems. Aww shucks, I've already forgotten his name.

[Aardvark]

Government is simply a monopoly of force' date=' how it came to be (Democratic or Despotic) is irrelevent. Anarchy is simply the lack of an entity with this characteristic.

[/quote']

 

I'd say how it came to be is relevant.

 

Government may have a monopoly of force, but i'd rather have a monopoly of force constrainted by at least a minimum of democratic and legal propriety, rather than, say a monopoly of force opperating a fascistic or communistic form of government.

 

I understand how democracy can be seen as the dictatorship of the majority, but better that than the dictatorship of one man or armed clique.

[Aardvark]

Government is simply a monopoly of force' date=' how it came to be (Democratic or Despotic) is irrelevent. Anarchy is simply the lack of an entity with this characteristic.

[/quote']

 

I'd say how it came to be is relevant.

 

Government may have a monopoly of force, but i'd rather have a monopoly of force constrainted by at least a minimum of democratic and legal propriety, rather than, say a monopoly of force opperating a fascistic or communistic form of government.

 

I understand how democracy can be seen as the dictatorship of the majority, but better that than the dictatorship of one man or armed clique.

[Ophiolite]

I agree with you Aardvark and would expand your basic point a little.

 

If we accept Kgill's view that government is a monopoly of force we can still ask:

Why is this force being applied i.e. to whose declared benefit? (the attempts to deliver these benefits may be misguided and unwelcome, but is the intent well-meaning.)

Is the force applied commensurate with the goals? (Not making illegal parking a capital offence, for example.)

Both of these will be effected by how the government arose, so it is relevant.

[Ophiolite]

I agree with you Aardvark and would expand your basic point a little.

 

If we accept Kgill's view that government is a monopoly of force we can still ask:

Why is this force being applied i.e. to whose declared benefit? (the attempts to deliver these benefits may be misguided and unwelcome, but is the intent well-meaning.)

Is the force applied commensurate with the goals? (Not making illegal parking a capital offence, for example.)

Both of these will be effected by how the government arose, so it is relevant.

[crapistan]

I'd say how it came to be is relevant.

 

Government may have a monopoly of force' date=' but i'd rather have a monopoly of force constrainted by at least a minimum of democratic and legal propriety, rather than, say a monopoly of force opperating a fascistic or communistic form of government.[/quote']

 

My point was simply to define the definition of anarchy, as the lack of an entity holding a monopoly of force. The issue being addressed is simply what government is. I would agree that how this power is delegated is important, but it adds no real substance to the objective of defining anarchy and government.

 

 

 

I understand how democracy can be seen as the dictatorship of the majority, but better that than the dictatorship of one man or armed clique.

 

 

51% of the population could in theory enslave the other 49%. If America's elections were more based upon a popular vote (and with the lack of a senate), California, with a massive population could direct the feds agenda to for example: Ban dairy production in Wisconsin, causing an economic (possibly humanitiarian) disaster in my region. Then California with a majority population verses Wisconsin, would enjoy a monopoly on the dairy industry.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would not enjoy being under the iron fist of another Stalin (I would be among the first to die in opposition). Above all I support equal representation of the states in the senate and I enjoy the rule of law, not of men. (what the heck was that quote?) True democracy would be the rule of the majority of people as a dictatorship would the rule of a single person. Neither concept has a foundation in basic rule of law. This is very dangerous... Remember how the Greek City States eventually went from a free thinking, artistic, scientific society to tyrranical, paranoid militaristic mob rule?

 

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!