Would Anarchy Work?

[DPDarkPrimus]

Maybe I should post a link to a fifteen-plus-page thread from another message board where an 'anarchist' kept arguing that anarchy would work? I'm still debating with myself whether or not his stupidity was too depressing to share with you all.

[Darth Servo]

Yet where exists true Democracy? On the eve of local elections here, I cannot help but think that our society is in fact an Oligarchy which pretends to give us a say every now and again. Democracy in Ancient Greece was still not perfect, but it was damn closer to the ideal of 'power to the majority' than we are- and it excluded 80% of the population!

Even our far from perfect Democracy is still a superior alternative to anarchy.

[AdmiralKanos]

"Genuine" Anarchy would never work - However, we have an excellent example of classical Anarchy, or the lack of a central government. That's called Somalia, and there the Gun rules.

Ah, but I'm sure that anarchists, like communists, will simply say that the ideals haven't been applied properly

If you want a country where people have individual freedom but that freedom can't be trampled by guys from tribal units driving around in technicals, you need a carefully balanced Republic/Confederacy based on libertarian principles.

Either that, or a C&C EVA so you can control your superior military forces from your eye-in-the-sky position to seize control of their territory and destroy their war factories with particle beam- er, ... oh wait, that's just a game, isn't it?

[Admiral Valdemar]

"ANARCHY RULES! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, FEAR MY 2X4 WITH A NAIL!"

"Hmm? Oh... yeah..."

*Ion cannon charging...*

[XaLEv]

"ANARCHY RULES! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, FEAR MY 2X4 WITH A NAIL!"

"Hmm? Oh... yeah..."

*Ion cannon charging...*

That dude with a board+nail could fuck you up in the time it takes the Ion cannon to charge. You really should look towards more reliable weapons.

*an Arm Vulcan can be heard firing in the background*

[Joe]

Yet where exists true Democracy? On the eve of local elections here, I cannot help but think that our society is in fact an Oligarchy which pretends to give us a say every now and again. Democracy in Ancient Greece was still not perfect, but it was damn closer to the ideal of 'power to the majority' than we are- and it excluded 80% of the population!

True democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who's for dinner. We live in a Republic with democratic principles.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yet where exists true Democracy? On the eve of local elections here, I cannot help but think that our society is in fact an Oligarchy which pretends to give us a say every now and again. Democracy in Ancient Greece was still not perfect, but it was damn closer to the ideal of 'power to the majority' than we are- and it excluded 80% of the population!

Democracy in Classical Athens was true Democracy - for the defined electorate. Free native males.

Modern government is not democracy. It's either on a basis of the Republic or the Constitutional monarchy, and the Republics or the Constitutional monarchies can either be federal or centralized. But it's not intended to be democratic so much as responsive.

The bonus of this is that there is some individuality in the system. In Athens there was no such thing as dissent. People opposed to a war were still expected to go out and fight in it after voting against it - Conscientious objectors? Forget about them; the body of the polis had to be unified. In way this is a glorious and advantageous thing, but the culture was hardly one of independence. The individual spirit of each citizen was combined into the polis; though nobody ruled, and thus still freedom reigned (which actually could create a very powerful driving force, but was limited).

The Romans, however, had a system in their Republic slightly more conductive to independence and personal initiative, and this has been ever extended down through the history of western civilization. The Greeks invented democracy, and the Romans refined it into a system capable of handling more than a single city, and representing the needs of the individual - However awkwardly in both cases.

In modern society what we see is the rise of government over the people, which is indeed dangerous, because it promises to either create an overclass outright or to simply quench the freedom of the populace. It must be opposed by legal means, but those means should be along the lines of restoring or maintaining balance to the people with their government - A balance wherein they again have the capability to resist the capricious whims of government.

Anarchy is just that, nothing more than chaos in which the strongest rules. A truly and unyieldingly Just society is one where the balance is between the tendency towards the anarchy in the populace, and the tendency towards autocracy in the government. This is very hard to achieve, of course, but can ultimately only truly be achieved by a consensual government.

Just societies have been had under Despots, and even theories for them been presented, but they ultimately last only as long as the Despot is constant in his ways. He slackens, or is replaced, and repression and slavery follows. Anarchy is simply every person a despot, and all striving against each other. It is only where they meet that lasting justice in a government can be found.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Either that, or a C&C EVA so you can control your superior military forces from your eye-in-the-sky position to seize control of their territory and destroy their war factories with particle beam- er, ... oh wait, that's just a game, isn't it?

*blinks* I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Either that, or a C&C EVA so you can control your superior military forces from your eye-in-the-sky position to seize control of their territory and destroy their war factories with particle beam- er, ... oh wait, that's just a game, isn't it?

*blinks* I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about.

Command and Conquer games, they had a female voiced (at least not in Red Alert) command computer that was a glorified PDA for all intents.

Maybe we could have an anarchy if some central, non-human control was in place, but then maybe it would be a dictatorship again or edge on to what the Culture has.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Command and Conquer games, they had a female voiced (at least not in Red Alert) command computer that was a glorified PDA for all intents.

Maybe we could have an anarchy if some central, non-human control was in place, but then maybe it would be a dictatorship again or edge on to what the Culture has.

I bought my last computer game years ago (possibly in 1998), to be honest. The things have just never really interested me, and the only gaming I do is text-based, either PBEM or on message boards, so I probably deserved that.

Non-human administration would be.... Well, that's already existed. It's called a God-King Theocracy. Of course, the people ruling weren't actually Gods, but...

It does look a bit less palpatable in that context, yes? After all, such a system would just be more effective, and could just more thoroughly go wrong if it did.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Command and Conquer games, they had a female voiced (at least not in Red Alert) command computer that was a glorified PDA for all intents.

Maybe we could have an anarchy if some central, non-human control was in place, but then maybe it would be a dictatorship again or edge on to what the Culture has.

I bought my last computer game years ago (possibly in 1998), to be honest. The things have just never really interested me, and the only gaming I do is text-based, either PBEM or on message boards, so I probably deserved that.

Non-human administration would be.... Well, that's already existed. It's called a God-King Theocracy. Of course, the people ruling weren't actually Gods, but...

It does look a bit less palpatable in that context, yes? After all, such a system would just be more effective, and could just more thoroughly go wrong if it did.

Hmm, never thought about that, this is more Kerpunk's area since I only did 3 years of classics and history. You two would get along fine I'm sure, science is my forté now at least.

But like anarchy, socialism like what is seen in the Culture books only came about through vastly superior societies and technologies (and not the lack thereof that some claim). The chief problem is human nature in all these ideal gov'ts and social systems and I'm under no illusion that we'll wake up tomorrow and turn to one of these concepts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hmm, never thought about that, this is more Kerpunk's area since I only did 3 years of classics and history. You two would get along fine I'm sure, science is my forté now at least.

But like anarchy, socialism like what is seen in the Culture books only came about through vastly superior societies and technologies (and not the lack thereof that some claim). The chief problem is human nature in all these ideal gov'ts and social systems and I'm under no illusion that we'll wake up tomorrow and turn to one of these concepts.

Once you're inside a particular government system, it is evolutionary in nature. A truly stunning technological change reordered society from agrarian to industrial - But the nature of government responded evolutionarily to this. Democracy had already existed, after all, and did not come to past merely because of industry.

In the same way, true communist governments like those of the Culture I would argue could not come to pass because of technological change. You could just get more efficient capitalism because of technological change. You might get an entirely different form of society - in otherwords, something other than the industrial society we have now, but the governments would still be capitalist democracies.

[Queeb Salaron]

Maybe we could have an anarchy if some central, non-human control was in place, but then maybe it would be a dictatorship again or edge on to what the Culture has.

Umm... So there's a big robot in the middle of the country that spouts off rules and regulations, and the people all look at it and say "fuck off," spraypaint the anarchy symbol all over its big metal hide, tip it over and burn it?

Hmm.... Sounds like a plan.

Besides, the only non-human control I can think of is a computer, and computers have to be programmed by someone. So someone's political interests would be programmed into the computer. So it's essentially putting the programmer vicariously in a position of dictatorship. No good.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Hmm, never thought about that, this is more Kerpunk's area since I only did 3 years of classics and history. You two would get along fine I'm sure, science is my forté now at least.

But like anarchy, socialism like what is seen in the Culture books only came about through vastly superior societies and technologies (and not the lack thereof that some claim). The chief problem is human nature in all these ideal gov'ts and social systems and I'm under no illusion that we'll wake up tomorrow and turn to one of these concepts.

Once you're inside a particular government system, it is evolutionary in nature. A truly stunning technological change reordered society from agrarian to industrial - But the nature of government responded evolutionarily to this. Democracy had already existed, after all, and did not come to past merely because of industry.

In the same way, true communist governments like those of the Culture I would argue could not come to pass because of technological change. You could just get more efficient capitalism because of technological change. You might get an entirely different form of society - in otherwords, something other than the industrial society we have now, but the governments would still be capitalist democracies.

Good point. I'll stick with capitalism then to be safe, it works at least.

[Jawawithagun]

for some ideas on "working anarchies" (at least in their authors' minds) read:

L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach"
James P. Hogans "Voyage from Yesteryear"

I'm not proposing that they truly could work that way. It's just some fiction fitting the topic

[kojikun]

I think that in a republic/parliamentary democracy there absolutely needs to be a branch of the government whos sole purpose is to ensure that the bill of rights is upheld and that the government isnt infringing on peoples rights.

The US Supreme court doesnt serve this function, it isnt even mandated to ACTIVELY look for these things, it has to be TOLD theres a bad situation. And even then, the people are prejudiced and its very ineffective. For instance, homophobic laws are actively kept in existance by the supreme court. I cant fuck my boyfriend legaly because the people in power are not mandates to keep my freedoms existant.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think that in a republic/parliamentary democracy there absolutely needs to be a branch of the government whos sole purpose is to ensure that the bill of rights is upheld and that the government isnt infringing on peoples rights.

Well, the presumption is that a branch of the government charged with doing that would itself break the law, and that the people themselves have to do this. Likewise, when a law is passed, it is assumed not to violate the Constitution - that the government wouldn't pass a law contrary to the constitution (and, by extension, you can continue to perform constitutional activities). If you think it does violate the constitution, however, then you challenge it, and the system rules as to its nature.

That's why some people refuse to pay their income tax - They say the amendment allowing for an income tax did not make it constitutional for the government to collect an income tax, and the original constitutional provisions regarding tax were so tightly worded that such makes the IRS unconstitutional. That hasn't been challenged yet but it would be interesting to see it come up.

The US Supreme court doesnt serve this function, it isnt even mandated to ACTIVELY look for these things, it has to be TOLD theres a bad situation. And even then, the people are prejudiced and its very ineffective. For instance, homophobic laws are actively kept in existance by the supreme court. I cant fuck my boyfriend legaly because the people in power are not mandates to keep my freedoms existant.

The U.S. supreme court ruled poorly in '86, but it was a very closely split ruling. They'll not uphold the Texas law come the latest test. The system is a very good and stable one.

[Aeolus]

Anarchy is contradictory. Anarchy is the dissolving of political power. Anarchists go about causing chaos until that dissolving is forced upon a government. But what is chaos? Chaos is destruction. Destruction is a display of superiority. Displays of superiority lead to challenges of that superiority. Challenges lead to fighting. Fighting leads to war. War leads to victory. To be victorious is to impose the will of one group on another group. That is power. Power is structure. Structire is order. Order is not anarchy.

See SLC Punk for more on this.

Thats a pretty good summation

[Queeb Salaron]

Thats a pretty good summation

Thanks. It was kind of half-ripped off from Matthew Lillard's (of all people) character's. In the middle of a huge gang-war-type scene, the film stops and he goes on for about 5 minutes about the order imposed by anarchy, and then at the end he states:

"Conclusion: None."

And the battle kicks up again. Quite amusing. I suggest you download it.

[Slartibartfast]

Anarchy can't possibly fail. Anarchy would obviously accomplish its primary purpose: make everything a chatoic mess

[Queeb Salaron]

Anarchy can't possibly fail. Anarchy would obviously accomplish its primary purpose: make everything a chatoic mess

Right. And then we all kill each other, and there's just one really jacked guy left standing at the top of a mountain banging his chest.

Then he dies of exposure 'cuz the tops of mountains are really cold.

Poor fella.