You don’t need to hypothesize about it, Somalia is your query brought to life.
Violence and warlordism are the only forms of governance during periods of anarchy. The weak are either slain or enslaved, which includes women, children, the disabled and elderly. Minority groups are destroyed, unless they are able to band together under force of arms.
Honestly, I always laugh a little when i see women or minority group members wielding anarchy symbols at protests.
This account has been deactivated.
Do you even know what anarchy is? Obviously the people who most commonly wield its symbol don’t know either, but you seem to think that anarchy means chaos.
i dunno. i take it to mean absence of government. maybe you’ve got a different def?
This account has been deactivated.
I agree with defensive_c.
Basically, in most societies, the goal is to have a balance between liberty and equality. Extremes of either tend to cause a lot of problems and make societies unstable.
Anarchy is unbalanced because it focuses on only freedom and not equality. “Might makes right,” “the strong rule the weak,” “big fish eats little fish,” etc. It causes too much of a gap between social classes which leads to the downfall of the civilization. Slaves (usually, the Janissaries were an exception) and serfs make lousy soldiers. Also, not being consumers, they cannot support the local economy. The country ends up becoming dependant on other countries to support its economy and loses more and more power. Eventually it breaks apart or is taken over by another country.
If the other extreme is followed, equality at the expense of freedom, technology tends to become stifled and those civilizations cannot compete which leads to worsening conditions, collapse of the economy, and eventual dependency and take over.
People have many definitions of anarchy and I was goofy not to specify that I meant anarcho-capitalism, a system that advocates the elimination of government in favor of individual rights in a free market. In this sort of system, every service formerly supplied by the government would be taken over by the private sector. Courts, police, everything would theoretically be provided by competing businesses.
verge wrote:
People have many definitions of anarchy and I was goofy not to specify that I meant anarcho-capitalism, a system that advocates the elimination of government in favor of individual rights in a free market. In this sort of system, every service formerly supplied by the government would be taken over by the private sector. Courts, police, everything would theoretically be provided by competing businesses.
This is the definition I was going by, historically referred to as “liberalism” (in no way connected to the definition of “Liberalism” used in the US). The system doesn’t work well for the reasons I stated above. Too much freedom to make money at the expense of others eventually kills the market. But the other extreme does the same thing.
I don’t know that anarchy could survive in today’s world. I would have to disagree that Somalia is in true anarchy. Anarchy is a lack of authority in general. Any authority and it ceases to be anarchy and becomes some low form of governance. I don’t know that I will ever see it, but I would not mind seeing something close to it. Anarcho-capitalism is of course separate from what I mentioned, but I think we can both agree that true Anarchy is not chaos and is simply branded such to prevent the populace from seriously considering it.
peasandricepod wrote:
verge wrote:
People have many definitions of anarchy and I was goofy not to specify that I meant anarcho-capitalism, a system that advocates the elimination of government in favor of individual rights in a free market. In this sort of system, every service formerly supplied by the government would be taken over by the private sector. Courts, police, everything would theoretically be provided by competing businesses.
This is the definition I was going by, historically referred to as “liberalism” (in no way connected to the definition of “Liberalism” used in the US). The system doesn’t work well for the reasons I stated above. Too much freedom to make money at the expense of others eventually kills the market. But the other extreme does the same thing.
I think that the reasons you stated above are unreasonable. People in a free market economy can not make money at the expense of others. They provide a valuable service or product that benefits society in some way, and they are paid for their work, or as a result of incompetent management or a bad idea, their business dies. Nobody makes money at the expense of anybody. Everyone within society benefits from the competition between businesses. In this system, the most trustworthy and efficient businesses, with the best services are chosen over the others by people within the society. As soon as they slip up, and begin to rely on the money they’ve made by being dependable, to lower their standards to increase their profits, another business is ready to take their customers. This creates cheaper better services and a higher standard of living all around. It doesn’t cause a gap between social classes, it lessens it. This is a very common misconception about capitalism in general that continues to baffle me.
i think this idea is silly. violence exists and cannot be wished away, thus someone will always seek to utilize and control it. our constitution very clearly grants the federal government a monopoly on the use of force. eliminate that central authority and the authority to use force will merely devolve — not vanish as you seem to be assuming.
warlords will always arise in the absence of a superior regional force. you can call those warlords “corporations with private security” or you can call them “farmers with vast supplies of ammo” — but arise they will, and left unchecked they will always expand their domains and war with each other.
just look at the tribalism of africa or the narco-bosses of mexico. a weak central authority results in local authorities that will always war with each other over resources, boundaries, etc.
maybe i’m just missing something here. who controls the application of force in this setup?
This account has been deactivated.
These are all ideas, it’s not as if I’m telling anyone to believe this, or even that it could work. I understand how most of it works except for the questions that I asked in my post. I hadn’t meant to teach anyone, but to learn, to work out the kinks. In an answer to your last question, I think that competing protection agencies would compete to provide people with safety. Almost like insurance, if you don’t pay them, they don’t protect you. Wow just think of how efficient they would be, I bet all kinds of new technology wold be made more and more quickly as a result of different agencies wanting to have the edge over their competitors. I don’t know who would solve conflicts over resources and land, thats a head scratcher, but here is an idea, resources could be rationed or completely off limits in order to give alternate sources of energy a thorough try.
verge wrote:
peasandricepod wrote:
verge wrote:
People have many definitions of anarchy and I was goofy not to specify that I meant anarcho-capitalism, a system that advocates the elimination of government in favor of individual rights in a free market. In this sort of system, every service formerly supplied by the government would be taken over by the private sector. Courts, police, everything would theoretically be provided by competing businesses.
This is the definition I was going by, historically referred to as “liberalism” (in no way connected to the definition of “Liberalism” used in the US). The system doesn’t work well for the reasons I stated above. Too much freedom to make money at the expense of others eventually kills the market. But the other extreme does the same thing.
I think that the reasons you stated above are unreasonable. People in a free market economy can not make money at the expense of others. They provide a valuable service or product that benefits society in some way, and they are paid for their work, or as a result of incompetent management or a bad idea, their business dies. Nobody makes money at the expense of anybody. Everyone within society benefits from the competition between businesses. In this system, the most trustworthy and efficient businesses, with the best services are chosen over the others by people within the society. As soon as they slip up, and begin to rely on the money they’ve made by being dependable, to lower their standards to increase their profits, another business is ready to take their customers. This creates cheaper better services and a higher standard of living all around. It doesn’t cause a gap between social classes, it lessens it. This is a very common misconception about capitalism in general that continues to baffle me.
Most of my knowledge is coming from the history and sociology classes I took in college, so I know more about what has failed than what could, in theory, work. I’m not in any way shape or form an expert on this.
Capitalism is beneficial for driving advances in technology and spreading ideas through trade. It works very well on a small scale. But on a larger scale it tends to allow individuals to prosper, but not society over all. Internationally it is catastrophic without regulations. An examples would be the East Indian Trading Company and what happened to India. A private business was given free reign to institute its own government in another country. Not caring at all about the natives, the company exploited them for its own gain. Imperialism works by allowing one country to exploit another with inferior technology. An industrialized nation can flood foreign markets of non-industrialized countries with cheap manufactured goods and there is no way for local merchants to compete. The industrialized nation (such as what the Iberians did to the Americas) will put restrictions preventing the non-industrialized country from trade with other countries (termed smuggling) while attempts from the non-industrial country to stop the influx of manufactured goods is termed “interfering with free trade” aka, stopping the industrial nation from exploiting the other, and is typically responded to with force. Temporarily the industrialized nation is in a better position, but even if what happens to the exploited countries is ignored, there has to be regulations within the nation to prevent an unbalance happening with its own people.
One big problem with supply and demand when applied to the labor force, is that other factors, such as population size, agricultural conditions, etc. have a huge impact on how valuable labor is. If there are too many workers, wages and working conditions drop. People then have less money to spend and consumers are sought in foreign markets. Private businesses typically aim for maximum profit. Out sourcing for employees and selling over seas are methods that can increase individual company profits, while damaging the economy of the home country. At the same time, trading between countries can increase profits, but someone is always putting regulations on someone else. Very successful economies are frequently formed by exploiting somebody, such as minorities within the country, or other counties without. If conditions become too harsh the lowest classes tend to revolt. Different groups, such as the middle class, the working class and large land owners will come into conflict with one another as each tries to increase its own freedom to make a profit. Basically, the function of a government is to try to lessen conflicts between these groups.
Despite all these problems with this system, the opposite is just as bad. A balance seems to be the most successful system. Capitalism with regulations to increase equality. I don’t think we’ve come up with the perfect system yet.
I apologize for typos, I’m really tired. I hope I was able to explain this in a way that made sense.
i see. well, just try to consider the monopoly of violence your ideas. resources rationed by whom? kept off limits by whom?
wikipedia has a short, badly written article on the subject, but it does bring up feudalism as an alternative to a state monopoly — which is sort of similar to what you describe with private security companies. the point is someone always has claim to being the sole entity in a given region with legitimate authority to use force.
sorry for being too critical, just don’t turn into the next karl marx :|
This account has been deactivated.
verge wrote:
These are all ideas, it’s not as if I’m telling anyone to believe this, or even that it could work. I understand how most of it works except for the questions that I asked in my post. I hadn’t meant to teach anyone, but to learn, to work out the kinks.
I wish more people were like this.
verge wrote:
In an answer to your last question, I think that competing protection agencies would compete to provide people with safety. Almost like insurance, if you don’t pay them, they don’t protect you.
Except that what usually happens, is that citizens in an environment like that don’t have a lot of money, so the protection agencies will sell their services to another country where the people can pay them better. The local people’s condition will deteriorate until they are rounded up and sold as slaves (a great way for a business to profit). Slave labor then enables other companies to make even more money, slaves cost less and can be forced to do things that willing employees will not. Brazil and sugar cane manufacturing is a good example of this. This arrangement may prove to be very prosperous for some, but other people will be exploited. If freedom is valued over equality this is a perfectly acceptable system. It’s been practised for thousands of years.
verge wrote:
Wow just think of how efficient they would be, I bet all kinds of new technology wold be made more and more quickly as a result of different agencies wanting to have the edge over their competitors.
This is true. Free markets as well as war are major drivers of new technology. There are ethical concerns, but if they are ignored, this is the best way to get new technology.
verge wrote:
I don’t know who would solve conflicts over resources and land, thats a head scratcher, but here is an idea, resources could be rationed or completely off limits in order to give alternate sources of energy a thorough try.
Any major power could do this. Government, large company, clergy, nobility, etc. The problem is only that whoever makes the rules, tends to make them in their own favor. If you believe that they have earned this privilege, then it could be viewed as justified. But if you object to the suffering this will cause to those with less power, then this would be a problem.
Long term wise, these systems do tend to fail, the initial leaders/heads of companies tend to be very driven, but subsequent leaders tend to be weaker, because they are born to the position. Succession is a problem in any society, but it tends to be worse when it is initially won by warfare or other individual means, because attempts to keep power within a group (as opposed to by public election) tends to have weaker leaders with each generation. This leads to eventual collapse or take over.
Okay, thank you so much for responding respectfully. I am tired too. Though you did a great job explaining, I see some holes in your arguments. I really appreciate the fact that you responded thoughtfully. I am going to try to explain myself fully and invalidate your arguments as best I can tomorrow ;)
OKay, Anarchy is basically where nobody dominates anybody else. Nobody tries to control or supress anybody else, whatsoever. This is what a lot of anarchist literature is getting at, and not what most people think of when they think of anarchy. It’s total peace really. I am all for it! But to be honest it goes against human nature. Human beings will always try to get over on each other for one reason or other, try to impose their beliefs on each other and gain things from each other. Even in nature animals dominate each other, like in wolf packs there is an alpha male. It’s an intriging concept and on the west coast in certain farmer’s markets you can find young people with many pamphlets containing literature on anarchy as well as other controversial things, like DIY abortions.. If you ever see those pamphlets, try to find the ones on anarchy. They are really facsinating as well as suprising.
without a military…we would be vulnerable
9mmWolf wrote:
…but I think we can both agree that true Anarchy is not chaos and is simply branded such to prevent the populace from seriously considering it.
there is a lot of misunderstanding of the term and related terms as well. I read a fair share of radical literature and I am always surprised by how different and interesting the term is compared to common perception.
peasandricepod wrote:
Anarchy is unbalanced because it focuses on only freedom and not equality. “Might makes right,” “the strong rule the weak,” “big fish eats little fish,” etc. It causes too much of a gap between social classes which leads to the downfall of the civilization.
that is not at all my understanding of anarchy. in fact, from what I’ve read, it’s been characterized as the opposite of that. “might makes right” sounds more like a capitalist idea to me.
verge wrote:
I don’t know who would solve conflicts over resources and land, thats a head scratcher, but here is an idea, resources could be rationed or completely off limits in order to give alternate sources of energy a thorough try.
this is an interesting problem. however, have you heard of “tragedy of the commons”? it deals with this problem and some interesting solutions have come about because of it.
MarlinTheFish wrote:
peasandricepod wrote:
Anarchy is unbalanced because it focuses on only freedom and not equality. “Might makes right,” “the strong rule the weak,” “big fish eats little fish,” etc. It causes too much of a gap between social classes which leads to the downfall of the civilization.
that is not at all my understanding of anarchy. in fact, from what I’ve read, it’s been characterized as the opposite of that. “might makes right” sounds more like a capitalist idea to me.
I asked about anarchy, but was really meaning to ask about anarco-capitalism as opposed to social anarchy which is probably what you’ve read most about. Anarco-capitalism is about the strong and smart being able to rise without restriction, the idea being that this would raise the standard of living for the whole population and allow everyone to live as freely as possible. I haven’t ever read that :) Maybe I will, but since writing this, I’ve come to realize that the rationing of resources is really not the way to go. I think people should own them, and treat them as private property and trade according to their benefit. The issue with keeping them off limits would be that someone would have to be given the authority to use force in order to do this, which is basically government, which goes against the whole point. This is just where I’m at currently based on what I know so far. I think I’m the sort that is capable of changing beliefs in light of new evidence.
verge wrote:
MarlinTheFish wrote:
peasandricepod wrote:
Anarchy is unbalanced because it focuses on only freedom and not equality. “Might makes right,” “the strong rule the weak,” “big fish eats little fish,” etc. It causes too much of a gap between social classes which leads to the downfall of the civilization.
that is not at all my understanding of anarchy. in fact, from what I’ve read, it’s been characterized as the opposite of that. “might makes right” sounds more like a capitalist idea to me.
I asked about anarchy, but was really meaning to ask about anarco-capitalism as opposed to social anarchy which is probably what you’ve read most about. Anarco-capitalism is about the strong and smart being able to rise without restriction, the idea being that this would raise the standard of living for the whole population and allow everyone to live as freely as possible. I haven’t ever read that :) Maybe I will, but since writing this, I’ve come to realize that the rationing of resources is really not the way to go. I think people should own them, and treat them as private property and trade according to their benefit. The issue with keeping them off limits would be that someone would have to be given the authority to use force in order to do this, which is basically government, which goes against the whole point. This is just where I’m at currently based on what I know so far. I think I’m the sort that is capable of changing beliefs in light of new evidence.
ahhh. ok. darn it.
re: resources. natural resources can’t really be owned, especially not by one person. society will learn this soon enough, but hopefully after I’m dead. anyway… how can you own a fish in the ocean until it is on your line?
Lol if a tree falls……nah, we’ll skip it.
I really don’t know, I hope to figure it all out before I die.
no to all questions listed above
I think that if zen archery leads to enlightenment, then when it’s time to sleep one must turn on the endarkenment through the opposite practice of anarchery.
I hope that helps.
It mostly seems to me like you’re saying you need sleep. If I’m not wrong, goodnight :)
You’re not wrong. Sleep is the target I’m aiming for.
GO ANARCHY! wrote:
Why? Are you trying to take over the world?
I love making my own quotes.
hahaha!
have you heard of this book called
“THE ANARCHIST COOKBOOK” ????????
you should read if anything
Carlin_Darlin777 good start.
I consider the most accurate and accepted definition of anarchy to be a system of government where “no group has a monopoly on the legal use of force.” For example, in my town (Gardner, MA) the government (adding state, local, and federal together) has a legal monopoly on the use of force. Anyone else who uses force (except in certain rare cases like self-defense and “citizen’s arrest” is acting outside the law and subject to punishment by the government.
Modern theories about anarchy have come about because the in most countries, the people with the legal monopoly on the use of force become the tyrants who oppress the whole of society (North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, etc…). We suggest that if there are competing judicial and protection agencies (like private fire departments) there will still be problems, but the biggest offender (the governments) would be much less powerful (no nuclear weapons, no Saddam Hussein).
Thus, anarchy is where there is no group with a legal monopoly on the use of force.
For more info, I refer to Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”.
Well how convenient, I have that book :)
verge wrote:
Well how convenient, I have that book :)
hahhaa
sncoronado wrote:
verge wrote:
Well how convenient, I have that book :)
hahhaa
Lol I’m sorry, I don’t have The Anarchist’s Cookbook, but thank you so much for replying to my question. I meant that I have Anarchy, The State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick which the Earl of Kent mentioned. :)
from stevo from the movie SLC Punk, probably not a great authority on the subject but a well put argument none the less (well to me)….
The Fight: What does it mean and where does it come from? An Essay:
Homosapien. A man. He is alone in the universe. A punker. Still a man. He is alone in the universe, but he connects. How? They hit each other. Ooh! No clearer way to evaluate whether or not you’re alive. Now, complications. A reason to fight. Somebody different. Difference creates dispute. Dispute is a reason to fight. To fight is a reason to feel pain. Life is pain. So to fight with reason is to be alive with reason. Final analysis: To fight, a reason to live. Problems and Contradictions: I am an anarchist. I believe that there should be no rules, only chaos. Fighting appears to be chaos and when we slam in the pit a show it is. But when we fight for a reason, like rednecks, there’s a system. We fight for what we stand for, chaos, but fighting is a structure, to establish power, power is government and government is not anarchy. Government is war and war is fighting. The circle goes like this: our redneck skirmishes are cheap perversions of conventional warfare. War implies extreme government because wars are fought to enforce rules or ideals, even freedom. But other people’s ideals forced on someone else, even if it is something like freedom, is still a rule; not anarchy. This contradiction was becoming clear to me in the fall of ‘85. Even as early as my first party, “Why did I love to fight?” I framed it, but still, I don’t understand it. It goes against my beliefs as a true anarchist. But there it was. Competition, fighting, capitalism, government, THE SYSTEM. That’s what we did. It’s what we always did. Rednecks kicked the **** out of punks, punks kicked the **** out of mods, mods kicked the **** out of skinheads, skinheads took out the heavy metal guys, and the heavy metal guys beat the living **** out of new wavers and the new wavers didn’t do anything. They were the new hippies. So what was the point? Final summation? None
Lol thanks for sharing. That was funny :)
take a look at Anarchy.net :)
I tried, but it doesn’t appear to exist. Thanks for replying though :)
Oh, i checked and it seems to have gone :( sorry about that, ill ry to find it again for you. and no problem :) i used to class myself as an anarcho-pacifist. though i realised anarchy isnt what i want, i jsut want more equlity, less class divide, and people to be nicer to each other :)
No problem, I want people to be nicer to each other too :)
:) it’s sites like this one that give me hope in humanity (until a homophobe starts being horrible to someone confuseed about their sexuality)
Lol I love this site too :)
I’d like you to know I’ve learned a lot from reading this discussion. It’s nice to see a topic discussed for the sake of further knowledge rather than for the sake of proving a point.
And since I’m taking up space, I think I’ll try to formulate a though on the topic (though I often ramble, so forgive me if I begin to speak nonsense; normally I’d delete my own nonsense except even from such nonsense some reason may emerge).
From now on, I’m going to make a country called “Anarchy-Land”, just so that I don’t have to keep typing, “in an anarchist society” or “in an anarchic country”. It just makes things easier. Every time I say Anarchy-Land, I’m talking about an anarcho-capitalist society as you defined it.
I think Anarchy-Land would work as far as the free-market system, but I think it was mentioned that solving disputes would be difficult, I think there has to be a single court. Now I wonder, is it possible for their to be a single court system that is not affiliated with the government? So in a way that it would be privately owned, but would not be in competition? Or if it would be the single thing owned by the people as a whole for them to choose who they want to be part of the court? I don’t know if that’d destroy the point of Anarchy-Land, because then the court might become a would-be government since they’d have a lot of power (and wages would be a complicated issue since they’d have to get money from somewhere, with no government there’d be no taxes, many people seeking justice might not have enough money to pay their own way, etc). A way of issuing justice, I believe, is the hardest problem to solve. Military is also difficult, but that comes from the possible outside threats; if anything, Anarchy-Land might be able to get another country to help out with military aid
Anarchy-Land might work if everyone had the correct mindset, but so is true with communism. An example of communism working would be monasteries. Monasteries are usually like communist groups; the monks own nothing, their work all goes towards the good of the community (but they don’t do it for the sake of a higher lifestyle, they do it for humility and for the sake of living simply, and they specifically choose to enter into it). So if everyone in Anarchy-Land lived with the intention to keep their ways and further individuality and technology for everyone through the free market, I think it could work. In the case of your question “What would prevent powerful people within that society from taking over/establishing a government?” If ALL the people who lived in Anarchy-Land all were there because they didn’t want government involvement, then there would be no danger of a government happen. Except it’s weird, there’d probably be people who, instead of finding a country with a constructed government, would try to make a government for Anarchy-Land (but, assuming the other citizens held fast to their ideals, they might be able to stifle any government that tried to rise up).
But at this point what I’m saying is basically fiction, unless a country could become like a giant anarchic-monastery that people could only enter if they “joined up”, but that’s also far-fetched. It might make for an interesting novel though.
Thank you so much for replying :)
Democracy was seen as an impossibility not so long ago. I’m just beginning to think that this might be the next step. Could be totally wrong though.
I’m curious why you think justice would work any differently from anything else in anarchy land. Do you think that it would have to work differently because you think justice is a right that the poor wouldn’t be able to afford? Seems nice, but if you’re going there, what about their right to have healthcare, their right to have food, their right to have slippers? I don’t think entitling people to goods and services is ever an effective way to make sure that they get them. I think the most effective way might be to put them in a system where they have the ability to buy anything they need or desire with the money they earn doing a job they work at voluntarily. In this society, wealth would never be destroyed by government forcing people to use it on goods and services that they didn’t want or need. I have a suspicion that the things that all people should have a right to would end up being very cheap naturally. In this society a person’s ‘right’ to something would be determined by nothing more than their own decisions and whether they worked to earn money. I think you are quite right about the people having to need the right mind and ideals to make this work and stop people from taking over, but have stopped letting kings dictate things, next maybe individuals will start disallowing the majority to dictate their lives. I’m really have no idea about the military issue.
I really am thankful for your thoughtful reply :)
I guess fiction is only fiction until it really happens. I think it’d be awesome if an Anarchy Land really happened and worked (or at least worked as well as any other system, but if it worked as well as any government, I’d say it’s better simply because it’s based on the efforts of the people who make it work).
I see what you’re saying, I agree it’d be great if people could be put into a stable enough situation where they can earn the money to afford things on their own (and I agree entitlements aren’t effective, sometimes I think they can even be damaging).
And actually I did a little more research on court dealings and see that it really wouldn’t be so different after all (I’m still learning how government and such works, I apologize that sometimes I say some things based on bad assumptions).
Another worry I had with the justice system was that privately owned courts might be able to just be bribed more easily, but then again, corruption isn’t any more likely to happen if it’s government or private. If there were courts in “competition”, the courts with the better reputation would be the ones with the most “business” and therefore would thrive on their own honesty, while if any courts were corrupted people would be less likely to choose to use them and they’d be put out of business….maybe…I’m already starting to see kinks though, but I suppose anything that hasn’t been done before will need some ironing out (and maybe other than the way I phrased there are other ways for justice to be organized privately).
However, what about large-scale criminals that are a threat to the general population? It’s no single person’s problem, but would it have to come down to a single person employing a private bounty-hunter to hunt down the criminal? If there’s an answer to the military issue, perhaps this problem will also be solved. I’m gonna think on the military for a few days and ask some friends what they think could be done without destroying the foundation of Anarchy Land. I’m actually really interested in seeing if a semi-realistic solution can be thought up.
Everything which lacks order is doomed to be destroyed in the end. The problem of capitalism and systems opposing anarchy is not the system and rules it imposes. It is the greedy nature of a human being which has to be controlled. Therefore, yes, anarchy could last, but very short time.
Lol anarco-capitalism depends on the greedy nature of men to work. Thanks for your reply.
ruruke wrote:
I apologize that sometimes I say some things based on bad assumptions.
Lol don’t be. I’m very grateful for your thoughtful reply. We all do this occasionally, the key is recognizing it.
I think you answered your own court corruption question very well. I think because the government wouldn’t be able to impose standards or regulations, the people would have to decide totally for themselves which courts were just and which were not. The courts would have to rely wholly on their reputation for business instead of arbitrary government validation, so they would have every motivation to do a good job.
About the large scale criminals, I think it would work the same way as the small scale ones if in this society the individual is the most important unit, and not held to be more insignificant than the majority (which is sort of the point of anarcho-capitalism). The victims, or just anybody at all who felt threatened could put their money towards capturing a threat with either some sort of protection agency (private police) or a bounty hunter. Then they’d be taken to court. I’m interested to hear any more of your ideas.
lisalovesalic wrote:
I have no idea!
Lol well thanks for looking anyway.
Sorry I wasnt much help!:P
The extent of my knowledge of anarchy is the movie RENT lol no but honestly I doubt that would be possible. There are so many people hungry for power nowadays and it’s relatively easy to go through with since so many are desperate for *some* kind of change(poverty, bills, etc). The world would be more “free” but with a price. There is absolutely no guarantee on things like crime rate, safety, money, personal rights.
Well thanks for sharing :)
verge wrote:
Well thanks for sharing :)
What is your opinion? I would go back and read but I’m in major lazy mode right now ;P. If you want to talk.
Haha I’d normally chat, but I’m about to go rustle up some dinner.
Too early for that here. Have fun with that.
This reply has been removed.
This reply has been removed.
harharharr wrote:
Hi verge ! :)
do not talk to harharharr. he is a troll.
This reply has been removed.
This reply has been removed.
True anarchy has existed and does presently exist. Research anarchy in Madagascar. Although I personally don’t think anarchy would solve anything for us. There has never been an industrial anarchy. Because of the absence of a regulating body, the cultural and societal norms have to be right to support stable anarchy. Because there is no social conflict between legal morality and societal morality, anarchical societies are actually more stable than others. And there is violence in anarchical societies but nowhere near as much as in societies like ours. My friend who went to Madagascar to study lemurs told me a story that I think encapsulates anarchical morals pretty well. Bare with me I’m not very good at this.
So someone in my friend’s group went to the market to get supplies. Someone tried to mug him on his way to the market knowing that if he going to the market he must have something on him. Seeing as how he was in danger, my friend’s friend pulled out his knife and stabbed the mugger dead. Everything in that story was moral. The main reason for this is no one in a true anarchical society owns anything. Property right do not exist. And although generally violence is immoral, self-defense would be the exception.
On a lighter note, what makes me laugh about the common perception of anarchy in America, is that true free markets and true democracies, things that are supposedly the great things about America, have only ever existed within anarchical societies.
That’s my two cents.
defensive_crustacean
peasandricepod
9mmWolf
carlin_darlin777
Positivemessylove
MarlinTheFish
zfielit
mindhealer
jackson.1442
sncoronado
Earl of Kent
thatoneguy2012
Hazel_LeSquirrel
ruruke
matthew236
lisalovesalic
seasonsoflove7
Dr. Ozy
Red747