Why wouldn't anarchy work?

[Henrin]

Seriously you think that there would not be demand for a 10 year battery that needs no charging? "That is absurdity stupid."

Considering that work on a battery that will never die is being worked on you could very well be looking at a short life span for your product.

 

[Henrin]

The really interesting thing about this thread is that the affect laws have on human behavior is still something where plenty of questions still remain unanswered.

 

[jet57]

Hi

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

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.

Western Europe enjoyed teh benefits of anarchy during the dark ages. The very reason it won't work is beasue there is always someone; ISIS for instance who will attempt to take over your little corner of the globe. Our own Articles of Confederation failed in that way and there was an attempted revival beginning in the 1850s. Even today, radical right-wing America is leading the charge once again for the confederate ideal. Anrachy has never and will never work in my view due to our huamn nature to belong and protect.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

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.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that we should protect those that fail. If this isn't what your saying, then disregard the following:

The problem I have with that model, is that you have the potential to continuing to throw money at a bad company that will never succeed, end up wasting the money. Remember Solyndra?

 

[Quag]

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.

In other words not anarchy in the philosophical/political ideology sense but anarchy in the mayhem and wanton destruction sense.

 

[Cephus]

In other words not anarchy in the philosophical/political ideology sense but anarchy in the mayhem and wanton destruction sense.

Once you remove all the rules and enforcement mechanisms, one is not far from the other.

 

[Henrin]

Western Europe enjoyed teh benefits of anarchy during the dark ages. The very reason it won't work is beasue there is always someone; ISIS for instance who will attempt to take over your little corner of the globe. Our own Articles of Confederation failed in that way and there was an attempted revival beginning in the 1850s. Even today, radical right-wing America is leading the charge once again for the confederate ideal. Anrachy has never and will never work in my view due to our huamn nature to belong and protect.

What place in Western Europe in the dark ages had no sort of governance? The articles of Confederation was an attempt at government, so clearly that is not an example of anarchy failing.

 

[Quag]

Once you remove all the rules and enforcement mechanisms, one is not far from the other.

The first leads to the second.

 

[jet57]

What place in Western Europe in the dark ages had no sort of governance? The articles of Confederation was an attempt at government, so clearly that is not an example of anarchy failing.

Following the attack of the Visagoths upon Rome and it's sacking, "governance" did not exist as such on the continent until the 9th century Holy Roman Empire. The Articles of Confederation were still a kind of anarchy for sure because it gave sovereign power to individual states rather than a centralized structure as we have now and as did both the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.

 

[apoState]

Which, of course, is nonsense. In anarchy, there is absolutely no democracy, the only ones getting a "vote" are the strong. The weak get trampled. The guy with the biggest gun makes the rules, nobody gets to vote on who gets the gun this week.

I'll never understand how rational people can think any of this makes sense.

That would not be anarchism. You are arguing against a strawman.

 

[apoState]

Not according to several thousand years of history.

Setting aside the fact that anarchism has worked on the small scale in many places throughout history, you are arguing that because something hasn't been done before it therefore can't be done. Every step forward humanity has ever made flies in the face of that assumption.

 

[faithful_servant]

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.

I don't know what "evidence" you're referring to, but a couple hundred thousand years of human history and the very nature of man both beg to differ.

 

[faithful_servant]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that we should protect those that fail. If this isn't what your saying, then disregard the following:

The problem I have with that model, is that you have the potential to continuing to throw money at a bad company that will never succeed, end up wasting the money. Remember Solyndra?

That's not evev remotely close to what I'm saying, in fact it's pretty close to being the complete polar opposite. We need to protect the successes, so that they are willing to take the risks that a lot of great innovations required.

 

[faithful_servant]

Setting aside the fact that anarchism has worked on the small scale in many places throughout history, you are arguing that because something hasn't been done before it therefore can't be done. Every step forward humanity has ever made flies in the face of that assumption.

Anarchy will drive stagnation, those small scale successes you refer to are only made possible by those societies which protect the weak and protect the successful.

 

[Henrin]

I don't know what "evidence" you're referring to, but a couple hundred thousand years of human history and the very nature of man both beg to differ.

Sorry, but neither of those claims are true either.

Anyway, here is a link to explain the issue further:

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Ku-et-al.-Does-Copyright-Law-Promote-Creativity-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1669-2009.pdf

 

[CrabCake]

I think part of the problem with a thread like this is that anarchy is such a broad term. It seems like everyone who has something to say has their own definition of what anarchy means and are either unaware that others define it differently, or are unwilling to acknowledge that definitions other than their own are valid. It would be more helpful if people describe the type of government they mean when they say anarchy and then discussed why that may or may not work.

 

[faithful_servant]

Sorry, but neither of those claims are true either.

Anyway, here is a link to explain the issue further:

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Ku-et-al.-Does-Copyright-Law-Promote-Creativity-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1669-2009.pdf

What a load of crap. Just reading through the conclusion it's pretty obvious that the authors are the types who start with the assumption that copyrights are bad and that everything non-material that is produced should be available for anyone to use free of charge. These are they kind of people who think that recording a movie at the theater with a cell phone and posting it to Pirate Bay is an admirable thing to do. I'll take the basic human nature over this kind of end-result based research any day.

 

[Henrin]

What a load of crap. Just reading through the conclusion it's pretty obvious that the authors are the types who start with the assumption that copyrights are bad and that everything non-material that is produced should be available for anyone to use free of charge. These are they kind of people who think that recording a movie at the theater with a cell phone and posting it to Pirate Bay is an admirable thing to do. I'll take the basic human nature over this kind of end-result based research any day.

Well, if you have anything to defend your argument I would love to read it.

 

[chromium]

Better question is why it *would* work. Where are the incentives to fulfill an agreement or resolve a dispute peacefully? To work instead of simply steal? There's what, 200 million guns in this country? You expect with no rules at all things wouldn't fall apart quickly? Even prison fails to coerce many.

 

[faithful_servant]

Well, if you have anything to defend your argument I would love to read it.

My defense is the very nature of just about everything with a brain on this planet. If they are rewarded for doing something, they are far more likely to do it again and get the reward again. This is so foundationally basic that I feel like I'm trying to teach you that 1+1=2. To think that people are going to take great risk to do something with no guarantee that if they are successful, they will reap benefit from it is pretty obtuse. I seriously can't understand why ANYONE would think any differently in the face of millennia of evidence to the contrary across not only homo sap., but just about every specie with anything even remotely resembling a learning curve.

 

[Henrin]

I realize you can't find any research to support your claim, but running on assumptions of human nature is not much of an argument. The debate does not revolve around people being rewarded for their work, as they clearly can be rewarded for their work with or without copyright law.

 

[American]

Hi

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

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.

Anarchy, like communism, would work great, if it weren't for people.

 

[idea_steed]

I can not think of a good point to support the anarchy. The world is so huge, filled with all sorts of people with different minds. if the government is overturned, this planet will be in a chaos the history has never seen. Take the ISIS for example, every sane person will agree that it is a gruesome and extreme organization, which, in own words ,is doing much more harm than good. If the authority is gone or no country tackles it, the Middle East will certainly be wrecked havoc on. Admittedly, some governments are tending to over-control their citizens and they are accused of being tyrants, there is no way that a country will be safe and sound without them. Humans have all sorts of individual needs to satisfy and will fight for them at any cost, often at the cost of others. A very simple example is that the police are always busy in, just as other posters said, stopping crimes.To curb the government 's tendency of stranglehold, there are other more available and cerebral approaches, like exposing what it does wrong on the Internet. The Internet is already an essential part of the surveillance, which people can feel without difficulties in the resignation of some officers after their misconducts are exposed.

 

[CLAX1911]

Hi

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

Please state your personal ideological standpoint along your comment, thanks.

Anarchy wouldn't last long. It would morph to dictatorships quickly. As long as somebody is willing and able to use people, they can gain power.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I am an anarchist and an anarchist world is the world I strive for. That said, humanity as a whole is not yet ready for it. Most people are still too reliant on governments and religions telling them what to do and how to live. So the main reason it won't work at this point in history is that most people won't accept it. My preferred path toward anarchism is one of evolution rather than revolution.

Anarchy is only practical to 7th graders who think it's cute to sketch anarchy A's on their binders during class. Anyone who has ever had an intelligent thought in their lives has at some point realized that anarchy would mean groups of armed thugs raping and murdering your family while you got a bullet to the back of the head, which is why we invented civilization in the first place.