• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why wouldn't anarchy work?

CPS01 said:
Hi

I'm looking for reasoned arguments for that anarchy won't work.

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.
Click to expand...

An immediate absence of governance, at this point in time, would erupt in the chaos the likes of which has not been seen before. Here in the US, especially, with a growing sense of entitlement among the population. However, I do think anarchy could be achieved through delegitimization of government which, in essence, is empowering people to not need government. Empower them to resolve conflicts at a community level, in a peaceful manner, as opposed to seeking a solution from a centralized government. "Anarchy" will not (can not) be "anarchy" in the immediate abolition of a government. It will leave a power vacuum. You will just have the rise of a new, probably worse, government. If people want a state, they will get a state. This is why you would need a strong majority onboard with anarchism. If you want anarchy, you should not be advocating to abolish the state, you should be advocating to abolish tolerance for being governed. This could be achieved by localizing and decentralizing governance until it's down at a community level.

This type of society will not happen overnight though, in fact there's a good chance we might never achieve it. However, what I do know, is that stable anarchy if it happens will only be achieved through evolution not revolution.

If we achieve stable anarchy, I'm good with that. A voluntary society would probably be far superior to central governance in every way. Much more peaceful too. However I'm skeptical of us, in our lifetime, even getting back to a society that respects the constitution much less a society that can govern itself. Seems like a long-shot IMHO.
 
TeleKat,

If you are advocating governance at the community level, then wouldn't that be tribalism rather than anarchy? or are you saying that is another stepping stone on the way to anarchy?
 
Henrin said:
That is an absurd standard. Public education is not necessary and yet it exists, government built roads are not necessary and yet they build them none the less, the internet is not necessary and yet here it is, war is not necessary and wars occur all the time, a great deal of products you can buy at the store are not necessary and yet they exist all the same, etc, etc, etc. The fact it exists has nothing to do with it being necessary or not.

The ideas that you have are yours as long as they stay inside your mind. Once you act on them, create something and then release it into the world it is no longer yours. Telling me I can not create something because you took ownership of the idea for however long the copyright exists is limiting my property rights and my liberty by extension to do with my property as I see fit. It is limiting my rights to use my pen and paper, my metal in my factory, or what have you to do with it as I please. There is no merit to you stepping on my rights and acting as if your already released ideas are yours now and forever. You are limiting competition on the market and thus restraining competitive forces and could very create yourself a powerful monopoly that crushes and mistreats all with nothing to stop you. You are limiting the power of capitalism to make all our lives better by restraining the free exchange of ideas. There is no risk that is actually real to ending copyright law, but a potential for a better life for all.
Click to expand...

It is refreshing to finally see you coming to terms with your own belief in anarchy Henrin.
Why not come clean with everyone and put anarchist in your profile lean. Calling your self a "Libertarian" is so dishonest.
 
CrabCake said:
TeleKat,

If you are advocating governance at the community level, then wouldn't that be tribalism rather than anarchy? or are you saying that is another stepping stone on the way to anarchy?
Click to expand...

Hey CrabCake :2wave:

At the community level, it wouldn't really be a "governance" as is commonly understood. It would just be voluntary cooperation. At a community level, compulsory taxation and monopolization of force (which are, as I see it, defining factors of governments) would be wholly unnecessary.

By the way, I was not advocating anything. I was simply suggesting an adjust in approach. :)
 
This conversation is going as good as a conversation on undefined socialism.

There many type of hyphenated anarchism.

Anarchism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Philosophical Anarchism
Individualist Anarchism
Free-Market Anarchism (or Anarcho-Capitalism)
Social Anarchism
Collectivist Anarchism (or Anarcho-Collectivism)
Communist Anarchism (or Anarcho-Communism) occupiers
Anarcho-Syndicalism
Religious Anarchism
Anarcho-Pacifism
Anarcha-Feminism
Green Anarchism
Anarcho-Primitivism
Eco-Anarchism
Autarchism
Insurrectionary Anarchism
National Anarchism
Analytical Anarchism
Epistemological Anarchism
Anarchism Without Adjectives
Anarchohippies​


Im sure there are some that I left out too. The point is that Anarchism as a political movement is in most cases not the definition in the dictionary.

Either form though they wont work because of the basics of the reason that they all are radical minority movements that leave out the fact that not every individual will lock step with some radical extremist bull****. Such political movements fail before they even get started many times they end with a split up and splinter groups, infighting and violence.
 
Henrin said:
There is no evidence that copyright law is needed for people in society to invent new things to make their life better. If that is what you mean anyway.
Click to expand...

People like getting benefit for what they do. If you can create something and get no benefit from it, you have a vastly lowered motivation for putting in the effort to create it. Basic human nature - something that people who support anarchistic societies have to ignore.
 
apoState said:
Why would your community allow that to happen if it means the same thing could happen to them?
Click to expand...
Because the community benefits more from the guy who stole your idea than they would from you. Therefore the WANTS of the majority override doing what is right for minority.


You can have a cooperative societal structure without it being hierarchical, which is what anarchists oppose.
Click to expand...

Not according to several thousand years of history.
 
apoState said:
Anarchism doesn't say how any particular community would set itself up. A thousand different communities could be structured completely differently.

But in general anarchist oppose hierarchical organizations such as current governments in which certain people at the top tell everyone at the bottom what to do. While a Republic like the US may allow people to elect these people, They are still just picking new rulers every few years.

To me anarchism would be democracy in its purest form. One person one vote on everything, not just picking your rulers. The community would vote on any new rules passed. A community may choose to elect security personnel to prevent theft and violence but those people could be recalled at any time by the community. If you didn't want to follow the rules of the community then there are various ways it could be handled. The community could stop providing services to you or even expel you. And yes, some communities may opt for execution if the trespasses are severe enough, though I would likely disagree with such a tactic.

Multiple communities could join up in federations for specific purposes, like building highways, or large scientific endeavors. Each community would elect a delegate to represent them in the federation with a very narrow set of administrative powers. Any substantive decisions would still have to go to the community for a vote. And the delegate could be recalled at any time. Such federations could also provide security in the lands between communities.

Anarchism did exist in various forms for the bulk of human history. If it didn't work at all we wouldn't be here now. But the technological world we live in now is very different. I don't think anarchism can be pulled on off in only a few places, it would have to be global to work. Anarchist Catalonia showed promise until the fascists overpowered them.

But as I said, humanity is not currently ready for it and I am under no allusions it will be in my lifetime.





I personally don't think anarchism would or should work on a large scale such as the US. I think it would work best in smaller communities, no larger than the typical city, if that.
Click to expand...

What you described is Democracy, not anarchy. IMO, anarchy means that there are no rules to follow, "Do as you will shall be the whole of the law" is the only law. What you describe has plenty of rules and when you have rules, you have to have someone to enforce them. If someone brings up a complaint against someone else, who decides how that complaint gets resolved?? For example: You kill my cows by damming up the stream that they water from so that you can have water for your pond so that you can fish for bass to feed your family. How does the community decide to act?? Do they all get together and vote on it?? What about if you build a house and decide to go on a picnic and when you get back, I've burned all your belongings and moved into your house, claiming that you abandoned it. Does the community take what is mine and give to you, causing my family to suffer? As a society, we need rules to follow and when you have rules, you need to have someone empowered to enforce those rules. Now personally, I think that our society is far too regimented, with far too many rules and too little enforcement of the rules that really matter. But the solution isn't to throw out the good with the bad, but to put systems in place which keep things in check.
 
faithful_servant said:
People like getting benefit for what they do. If you can create something and get no benefit from it, you have a vastly lowered motivation for putting in the effort to create it. Basic human nature - something that people who support anarchistic societies have to ignore.
Click to expand...

If I was to increase copyright protection would I experience an increase in copyrighted works? If I was to decrease copyright protection would I experience a decrease in copyrighted works? Contrary to the myths about copyright law reducing or otherwise limiting copyright protection is actually more likely to increase the number of new works. Still, that is not always the case nor can you predict exactly what will happen. In fact, the data suggests that population is the best indicator to go by for the number of new works and not the laws on copyrights.
 
Last edited:
TeleKat said:
Hey CrabCake :2wave:

At the community level, it wouldn't really be a "governance" as is commonly understood. It would just be voluntary cooperation. At a community level, compulsory taxation and monopolization of force (which are, as I see it, defining factors of governments) would be wholly unnecessary.

By the way, I was not advocating anything. I was simply suggesting an adjust in approach. :)
Click to expand...

What happens when someone or some people decide not to cooperate but instead to control?
 
Henrin said:
If I was to increase copyright protection would I experience an increase in copyrighted works? If I was decrease copyright protection would I experience a decrease in copyrighted works? Contrary to the myths about copyright law reducing or otherwise limiting copyright protection is actually more likely to increase the number of new works. Still, that is not always the case nor can you predict exactly what will happen. In fact, the data suggests that population is the best indicator to go by for the number of new works and not the laws on copyrights.
Click to expand...

If you had an idea for a battery that would last ten years with no re-charging and the cost of doing the R&D to produce that battery was everything you owned and once you finally got it right someone could walk in and take it from you, would you do it?? Would you drive your family into poverty while some toolbag got to spend the rest of his life living in luxury just because he had the ability to walk into your home and take what you accomplished and then have your community decide that because he promised that everyone could have it if they simply allowed him to marry your daughter and provide him with a house and all the luxury items he wanted for the house, while you were asking for a luxury home, a yacht to live on and an island to sail the yacht to? In an anarchistic society (as I understand it), the society would do what's best for it and to hell with you and your family.
 
faithful_servant said:
If you had an idea for a battery that would last ten years with no re-charging and the cost of doing the R&D to produce that battery was everything you owned and once you finally got it right someone could walk in and take it from you, would you do it?? Would you drive your family into poverty while some toolbag got to spend the rest of his life living in luxury just because he had the ability to walk into your home and take what you accomplished and then have your community decide that because he promised that everyone could have it if they simply allowed him to marry your daughter and provide him with a house and all the luxury items he wanted for the house, while you were asking for a luxury home, a yacht to live on and an island to sail the yacht to? In an anarchistic society (as I understand it), the society would do what's best for it and to hell with you and your family.
Click to expand...

The better question is what kind of businessman drives himself into poverty doing R&D. I would never imagine to do that in the first place. That is absurdity stupid.
 
CPS01 said:
Hi

I'm looking for reasoned arguments for that anarchy won't work.

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.
Click to expand...

Because someone would set up a (likely tyrannical) state, and no one could stop them.

That about sums it all up.
 
CPS01 said:
Hi

I'm looking for reasoned arguments for that anarchy won't work.

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.
Click to expand...

Because I'd shoot you and take your stuff. Have a nice day.
 
Henrin said:
The better question is what kind of businessman drives himself into poverty doing R&D. I would never imagine to do that in the first place. That is absurdity stupid.
Click to expand...

The kind that sees a payoff that makes it worth the short-term sacrifice. I know of a couple of people who did exactly that and they are both VERY rich men today. What you see as stupid, others see as opportunity.
 
faithful_servant said:
The kind that sees a payoff that makes it worth the short-term sacrifice. I know of a couple of people who did exactly that and they are both VERY rich men today. What you see as stupid, others see as opportunity.
Click to expand...

Your example called for me to spend all my fortune on R&D on a product that I have no idea how the public will receive it. Will they like the product? Will they hate it? What happens when the product flops? Starting a business on a loan is absurd since the only thing you are sure of is that you will have to pay back the loan.
 
Henrin said:
Your example called for me to spend all my fortune on R&D on a product that I have no idea how the public will receive it. Will they like the product? Will they hate it? What happens when the product flops? Starting a business on a loan is absurd since the only thing you are sure of is that you will have to pay back the loan.
Click to expand...

Seriously you think that there would not be demand for a 10 year battery that needs no charging? "That is absurdity stupid."
 
Henrin said:
The better question is what kind of businessman drives himself into poverty doing R&D. I would never imagine to do that in the first place. That is absurdity stupid.
Click to expand...

You just summed up the clean energy division, minus the government subsidies of course.
 
faithful_servant said:
The kind that sees a payoff that makes it worth the short-term sacrifice. I know of a couple of people who did exactly that and they are both VERY rich men today. What you see as stupid, others see as opportunity.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many FAIL for each one of those that succeed?
 
Quag said:
What happens when someone or some people decide not to cooperate but instead to control?
Click to expand...

That's the question that anarchists, in this case, can never answer. They have to assume that everyone is going to sit around singing kumbayah and working together. In reality, anarchy would look more like The Road Warrior, roving bands of heavily armed and armored bandits doing what they want because they have the power to do it and nobody being able to stop them.
 
Henrin said:
Your example called for me to spend all my fortune on R&D on a product that I have no idea how the public will receive it. Will they like the product? Will they hate it? What happens when the product flops? Starting a business on a loan is absurd since the only thing you are sure of is that you will have to pay back the loan.
Click to expand...

People do this all the time, some of them fail and go broke and some succeed and end up owning their own island.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Do you know how many FAIL for each one of those that succeed?
Click to expand...

Lots, but those that succeed are the ones that move technology and oftentimes society forward. Those that fail usually find something else to invest in and keep trying until they do succeed (what I call the "Edison Model"). As a society, we need to protect this process, not expose it to being destroyed by those without rules (anarchists - to bring the discussion back to the OP). This kind of risk MUST be protected, since it is the driving force behind innovation. If we can't guarantee that the successes will reap benefits from their efforts, then we stifle innovation.
 
CPS01 said:
Hi

I'm looking for reasoned arguments for that anarchy won't work.

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.
Click to expand...
If I walked up, smacked you upside your head, and walked away with your laptop, how would that work for you?

Imagine a society with no rules, no law, no order, no organization. That may be great if you want to go live by yourself off in the mountains somewhere.
 
faithful_servant said:
Lots, but those that succeed are the ones that move technology and oftentimes society forward. Those that fail usually find something else to invest in and keep trying until they do succeed (what I call the "Edison Model"). As a society, we need to protect this process, not expose it to being destroyed by those without rules (anarchists - to bring the discussion back to the OP). This kind of risk MUST be protected, since it is the driving force behind innovation. If we can't guarantee that the successes will reap benefits from their efforts, then we stifle innovation.
Click to expand...

Except the evidence does not suggest that all. As I have already stated, the evidence suggests that the best predictor for new work produced is population, not copyright protection. Copyright protection does little to change peoples incentives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom