"I would rather deal with one tyrant [or tyrannical institution] 3000 miles away, than 3000 tyrants one mile away."
Anarchy has proven, time and time again, to be a horrendous state of affairs. When Rome's power waned, and it could no longer support some of its frontiers, violence and theft were rampant. Also, without the state, literacy declains as people no longer have one set language to learn and communicate with. A decrease in literacy leads to an increase in prejiduce, and even more violence.
Examine also, the state of affairs the US was in under the Articles of Confederation. Virginia and Pennsylvania nearly went to war. Rampant inflation caused an enormous amount of poverty as there was no backing to any curency whatsoever.
Left to their own devices, human behavior degenerates into mob rule. And mob rule has lead to some of the worst conditions in human history.
And what is to ensure that such a thing is respected?
Exactly. Union-based anarchies are attempts at coming up a scenario where everyone in society enjoys maximum utility, but which depends on the honest subscription of each member. How to deal with social malevolence is an irritating afterthought to the anarchist, and usually they'll just brush off the entire issue of social malevolence as if their system "takes care" of that as a side effect.
In the begining the the United States it was just that. They were separate states that came together to for a more perfect union.
The role of the federal government was limited. It was there to provide and to protect the states as a whole but not to interfere with how they worked.
It was a meeting place that rep's from the different states could come and talk about ideas and pass laws that would be bennifitial to most.
however over the years the everyone has turned to the federal government and given it more power. something that the founding fathers would have been upset on i imagine. they want the states to run themselves not have the federal government over their head all the time.
states rights has become a big issue of late.
the capital was set up so that if states had an issue and couldn't resolve it then they could bring it before the federal government and they would make a ruling decision and apply it across the board.
an example would be transport of goods. some states refused to let other transport their good through. or they charged embargo taxes to do so. it was debated and the federal government said they couldn't do that. that free trade was provided under the constitution.
now the federal government is a bloated enitity with to much power. it has more power than what it was suppose to have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Exactly. Union-based anarchies are attempts at coming up a scenario where everyone in society enjoys maximum utility, but which depends on the honest subscription of each member. How to deal with social malevolence is an irritating afterthought to the anarchist, and usually they'll just brush off the entire issue of social malevolence as if their system "takes care" of that as a side effect.
Irritating afterthought? Human nature is far more than an irritating afterthought, it's a risk to every member of the species in an anarchist 'society'; or whatever term you use for a group of anarchists. Union-based anarchy is a misnomer, really, as anarchy itself is an attempt to abolish any form of government.
Anarchy places far too much faith in the individual. If human beings were capable of governing themselves, or as a group of true equals, true socialism and true communism would work. Self-sufficient Utopian society could exist. But the truth is, the state is necessary for any type of real stability, and those who think otherwise are deluded.
Also, a quick question for would-be anarchists: why are you still living with the rest of society? If you crave isolation from the institution so much, why not live in the wilderness, like an animal?
Also, a quick question for would-be anarchists: why are you still living with the rest of society? If you crave isolation from the institution so much, why not live in the wilderness, like an animal?
Presumably because it wouldn't do much, and anarchist != hermit?
Presumably because it wouldn't do much, and anarchist != hermit?
Well, if there's a 0% chance of society going anarchist, and you're that oppressed by the government, why not? Besides, if we were reduced to anarchy, what alternative would you have? Dealing with other people would be too dangerous, since they'd be liable to try and kill you for whatever you're worth.
In the begining the the United States it was just that. They were separate states that came together to for a more perfect union.
The role of the federal government was limited. It was there to provide and to protect the states as a whole but not to interfere with how they worked.
It was a meeting place that rep's from the different states could come and talk about ideas and pass laws that would be bennifitial to most.
Or beneficial to their state, and their state alone. The Articles of Confederacy failed miserably because they had a weak, almost non-existent national government. Because of that, it was extremely easy for the states to govern themselves any way they saw fit. People's rights were being trampled on. Property rights, economic rights, civil rights, etc..
however over the years the everyone has turned to the federal government and given it more power. something that the founding fathers would have been upset on i imagine. they want the states to run themselves not have the federal government over their head all the time.
a. the framers are not a homogeneous entity. They are a group of different people from different states with different opinions. Hamilton and Madison probably would probably not mind, while Jefferson might.
b. Please demonstrate that the federal government is "over their head all the time."
states rights has become a big issue of late.
the capital was set up so that if states had an issue and couldn't resolve it then they could bring it before the federal government and they would make a ruling decision and apply it across the board.
an example would be transport of goods. some states refused to let other transport their good through. or they charged embargo taxes to do so. it was debated and the federal government said they couldn't do that. that free trade was provided under the constitution.
Again, look at what happened under the Articles of Confederacy. Contracts and interactions between states had no arbiter, and resulted in the abuse of many citizen's economic and property rights as well destroying what little unity the states had, all the while pitting the states against each other and almost having them come to blows. You malign regulation of interstate commerce, but without a national government to regulate that you might very not have much of the food that stocks your kitchen or all the other goods you buy because all the states would be feuding and competing with each other as they did under the Articles of Confederacy.
now the federal government is a bloated entity with to much power. it has more power than what it was suppose to have.
Again, please demonstrate this. Certainly, I agree with you that the federal government has expanded its reach and jurisdiction too much (especially executive powers in the last 20 years, especially the last 7).
That said, the same problem one experiences in an anarchy one experienced under the Articles, except a tyranny of the majority replaces a despotic state. Not that a tyranny of the majority is an impossibility with a strong federal government, but its even more of a likelihood in a system such as that under the articles were there is no system by which to check those state governments. Under that system, the state governments have extremely arbitrary power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
The Articles of Confederation was not "anarchy," by any meaningful definition of the world. There were individual states that were totally sovereign. I think the word state is operative here. Chaos != anarchy.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Well, if there's a 0% chance of society going anarchist, and you're that oppressed by the government, why not?
Because it's not "no government or death/exile"? Like anything else, it's costs vs. benefits. Maybe some people are willing to be hermits. What does this have to do with anything, though?
Besides, if we were reduced to anarchy, what alternative would you have? Dealing with other people would be too dangerous, since they'd be liable to try and kill you for whatever you're worth.
Now you're talking about widespread anarchy, or what?
The Articles of Confederation was not "anarchy," by any meaningful definition of the world. There were individual states that were totally sovereign. I think the word state is operative here. Chaos != anarchy.
Your right, Anarchy != Chaos. They were Anarchy in the sense that there was hardly any/no restriction on power, just like under a system of Anarchy. There was also chaos, but that was a product of that heavily decentralized and unregulated power. It wasn't what I was trying to conflate with Anarchy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
they did have an arbiter it was the federal government. that it was its intent was. it was suppose to be the final aribter if the states couldn't solve the problem.
it was meant so that the individual states could get together and come to a benefitial solution to the problem instead of fighting each other.
that was suppose to be the roll. instead we have turned the federal government into the all powerful entity that it was not suppose to be.
the founding fathers didn't want a localized power base. they didn't want one part of the government becoming a sink hole of power. that is what the federal government is now, because now the people no longer are in charge of the government.
are elected officials do whatever they want reguardless of what the people think. that is why the founding fathers wanted to keep the federal part of it as minimal as possible.
that states before had no issues in supporting themselves. now they are constantly dependant on getting federal money. heck the federal government itself was suppose to be a self maintaining body.
for the longest time it was.
after the federal government made the rulings and passed the laws then yes it did work. most of those laws are still in effect today. they are now enforced though.
laws only work if they are enforced once they are enforced then they work. it doesn't matter if you have a sign that says keep off the grass. unless you enforce that law then people are going to walk on the grass just to say they did it.
anarchy is the worst possible solution. yet if you look at it that was what started this country. it was anarchy against england. it was a whole bunch of things. the founding fathers tried to make sure that there were checks and balances built into the system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
EDIT: I realized I didn't answer the question. Yes, I think a government ought to exist, provided it has sufficient safeguards to ensure the total value of rights, because that is what ensures legitimacy. I don't feel like the government ought to have coercive power, due to my own libertarian fear of group-think.
I dislike the arguments of the anarchists/minarchists because I subscribe to Locke/Hobbes' State of Nature theory. I think (all of my personal Lockean libertarian leanings aside) that there's such a thing as "too much" freedom, and that's really what the SoN implies: a state where individuals can't be trusted with their own rights. I think the state is necessary in the way that Locke envisioned it: that it is necessary to have a central power that regulates rights to a degree and provides protection for the rest, and without it, there are few ways to guarantee just outcomes.
Plus, I think that the states (or lack thereof) Chomsky and Co. argue for are unjust at a certain point, in that it naturally undermines the very fundamental need for an equal schema of rights. For example, in an anarchy (Chomsky), there are going to be some who have more rights than others by nature of being stronger. While one might argue that there are rights discrepancies in our modern societies (mostly based on wealth differences), I would say those are not explicit rights imbalances, whereas those would be much clearer in an anarchy/minarchy (for example, they would be based on fundamental things such as genetic advantage, rather than exterior things such as position in society). This is why I favor a state in which the primary purpose is rights protection, and that if those rights can't be protected, they lose there value and therefore there are legitimate outcomes. I think of it as a rectification between the gap between Rawls and Nozick, but that's just me. I then extend it a bit, thinking of rights protection in terms of utility, but with a focus on overall good rather than hedonism, etc. etc.
I also feel like Chomsky's "union-based" society is too pluralistic, but again, that's just me.
Now, to respond:
Quote from Priest of Titania »
Rousseau had it right in The Social Contract, the government is there to implement and enforce the will of the people; anarchy is a huge step backwards for the human race. Removing the state is the antithesis to my 'forward progress' theory.
Read some Alexis de Tocqueville, get back to me on that. The "general will" theory is entirely unjust because it fundamentally shunts the minority. Lockean systems check this because they often have some counterbalancing mechanism (f.e. the United States' form of representative government that checks the power of the majority).
Anarchy places far too much faith in the individual. If human beings were capable of governing themselves, or as a group of true equals, true socialism and true communism would work. Self-sufficient Utopian society could exist. But the truth is, the state is necessary for any type of real stability, and those who think otherwise are deluded.
Perhaps, but the truth is, groups are generally worse because of their inherent coercive power. That's part of the reason why I dislike Chomsky's argumentation.
they did have an arbiter it was the federal government. that it was its intent was. it was suppose to be the final aribter if the states couldn't solve the problem.
An arbiter needs the power to enforce it's decisions or it is weak, impotent, and unable to fulfill its duty as an arbiter. Look at the early Supreme Court. Stop me if you have heard this before, "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
it was meant so that the individual states could get together and come to a benefitial solution to the problem instead of fighting each other.
that was suppose to be the roll. instead we have turned the federal government into the all powerful entity that it was not suppose to be.
Please, enlighten me as to this arbitrary power of the federal government. The states do need more power under the current system, your right, but a weak federal government leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes; its better to err on the side of too much federal power, which is more easily checked by individual states and the populace in general, then too weak a government were you end up with a free-for-all that quickly degenerates and becomes difficult to stop. With a strong federal government, the power is heavily centralized, but so is the state power and power and influence of the people.
the founding fathers didn't want a localized power base. they didn't want one part of the government becoming a sink hole of power. that is what the federal government is now, because now the people no longer are in charge of the government.
are elected officials do whatever they want reguardless of what the people think. that is why the founding fathers wanted to keep the federal part of it as minimal as possible.
Again, the framers are not a homogeneous entity. Some wanted an absolutely minimal federal government, some didn't. That said, politicians very much care about what the people think, as it gets them elected. Any failure you see in regards to lack of input by the populace is a failure of civic virtue in that populace, not as a symptom of runaway federal government.
that states before had no issues in supporting themselves. now they are constantly dependant on getting federal money. heck the federal government itself was suppose to be a self maintaining body.
for the longest time it was.
That's it. Supporting themselves. They had no issues supporting themselves, at the cost of the other states. The states act as selfish entities, and so does the federal government. How do we solve the problem of factionalism and selfishness in government? We pit those factions against each other in a power struggle, this prevents the tyranny of the majority I spoke of in my other post. Just as we do this in the federal government and the state government, so to do we do this with the interplay between the federal and state governments. The supremacy clause is not a death sentence, its a necessary provision to keep the states in check. You seem to severely under-estimate the effect and influence individual states have.
after the federal government made the rulings and passed the laws then yes it did work. most of those laws are still in effect today. they are now enforced though.
laws only work if they are enforced once they are enforced then they work. it doesn't matter if you have a sign that says keep off the grass. unless you enforce that law then people are going to walk on the grass just to say they did it.
Yes, and? This is only proving my point further. Without a federal government, you can't have anyone that can keep you off the grass. With a weak federal government, they don't have the power to keep you off the grass.
anarchy is the worst possible solution. yet if you look at it that was what started this country. it was anarchy against england. it was a whole bunch of things. the founding fathers tried to make sure that there were checks and balances built into the system.
First, I have no clue how checks and balances, in the way you've thrown it out there, is relevant to the discussion. Secondly, the point of the revolution was not anarchy, it was to cut out the overhead and unfair treatment of a distant, powerful, national government. That is were this irrational fear of big government comes from. The English government was tyrannical because it was not implemented with this idea in mind. Our government is, and provides safeguards against such. Like you said, checks and balances. Our government is a machine, and it requires input to function properly. Without civic virtue, it fails to function in a capacity that it was intended to. Thats how we end up with Augustus as president.
Edit: Much love for Xyre for articulating exactly what I think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Your right, Anarchy != Chaos. They were Anarchy in the sense that there was hardly any/no restriction on power, just like under a system of Anarchy. There was also chaos, but that was a product of that heavily decentralized and unregulated power. It wasn't what I was trying to conflate with Anarchy.
What I think you are talking about doesn't really make sense. Maybe it's because I have been doing my Mechanics and Physics homework for the past ten hours and it is now 2:20 AM my time. So please forgive me for any incoherence. But having unrestricted power seems to imply some kind of controlling private power (i.e. state). So I don't see how "no restriction on power" can constitute anarchy. Anarchy doesn't eliminate power (since such is impossible), rather it seeks to return it to individuals themselves to that they can exercise power locally, in democratic, free associations, rather than having power imposed on them in a pseudo- or non-democratic way with involuntary associations.
Your right, Anarchy != Chaos. They were Anarchy in the sense that there was hardly any/no restriction on power, just like under a system of Anarchy. There was also chaos, but that was a product of that heavily decentralized and unregulated power. It wasn't what I was trying to conflate with Anarchy.
What I think you are talking about doesn't really make sense. Maybe it's because I have been doing my Mechanics and Physics homework for the past ten hours and it is now 2:20 AM my time. So please forgive me for any incoherence. But having unrestricted power seems to imply some kind of controlling private power (i.e. state). So I don't see how "no restriction on power" can constitute anarchy. Anarchy doesn't eliminate power (since such is impossible), rather it seeks to return it to individuals themselves to that they can exercise power locally, in democratic, free associations, rather than having power imposed on them in a pseudo- or non-democratic way with involuntary associations.
EDIT: I realized I didn't answer the question. Yes, I think a government ought to exist, provided it has sufficient safeguards to ensure the total value of rights, because that is what ensures legitimacy. I don't feel like the government ought to have coercive power, due to my own libertarian fear of group-think.
Your libertarian fear of group-think is quite valid, and I share that fear, which is why I am a skeptic of the State.
I dislike the arguments of the anarchists/minarchists because I subscribe to Locke/Hobbes' State of Nature theory.
I don't really think you can know what the State of Nature is. You've never seen it; you've just seen the general behavior of human beings within a coercive system, and to assume they act exactly the same way in a non-coercive system does not seem to follow a priori, at least in my view. And anyway, isn't right-libertarianism a minarchist/anarchist philosophy? Where Nozick supports to minimal state and Rothbard is in favor of no state with a market of defense firms?
I think (all of my personal Lockean libertarian leanings aside) that there's such a thing as "too much" freedom, and that's really what the SoN implies: a state where individuals can't be trusted with their own rights. I think the state is necessary in the way that Locke envisioned it: that it is necessary to have a central power that regulates rights to a degree and provides protection for the rest, and without it, there are few ways to guarantee just outcomes.
The only "too much" freedom that exists is that which infringes on the rights of others. That's pretty much accepted within both left and right libertarian theory. However, I think there are a few basic problems with social contract theory. I may get into these points later, but I am currently too tired.
Plus, I think that the states (or lack thereof) Chomsky and Co. argue for are unjust at a certain point, in that it naturally undermines the very fundamental need for an equal schema of rights. For example, in an anarchy (Chomsky), there are going to be some who have more rights than others by nature of being stronger.
No. Because you're talking about capabilities, not rights. That no external restriction of the State exists does not imply that people have more rights. People have the same rights they had before: life and liberty to do that which does not kill or infringe on the liberty of others. Anyway, the strength of some over others is checked by voluntary association and direct democracy. If someone starts to lug his huge balls around, the others can just shun him and refuse to trade with him, and defend themselves when he tries to take what he needs by force, in which case he's forced to play ball with everyone else. Of course, he's free not to, but the consequences are his to accept.
While one might argue that there are rights discrepancies in our modern societies (mostly based on wealth differences), I would say those are not explicit rights imbalances, whereas those would be much clearer in an anarchy/minarchy (for example, they would be based on fundamental things such as genetic advantage, rather than exterior things such as position in society).
Sixteen Tons, anyone? The truck system created a very specific rights imbalance, in that those who owned the company owned the liberty of others (which shouldn't happen under libertarian theory), and those who worked for the companies owned nothing. In fact, by virtue of their debt slavery, they were owned in the literal sense. How these imbalances would be more pronounced in an anarchic society is beyond me, since I don't really think anyone would tolerate something even roughly approximating the truck system. The way I see it, the truck system was maintained by the State, in that the company could call in the goons, or the cops would simply beat up strikers and so on. A situation without cops beating up strikers and with workers sniping company goons from the hills seems to remedy this rights imbalance, whereas the State seems to tolerate or perpetuate it. I'm not saying this situation exists in many places today, but simply taken as a historic example, still technically modern, has existed before. In fact, it exists still in so-called communist China.
This is why I favor a state in which the primary purpose is rights protection, and that if those rights can't be protected, they lose there value and therefore there are legitimate outcomes. I think of it as a rectification between the gap between Rawls and Nozick, but that's just me. I then extend it a bit, thinking of rights protection in terms of utility, but with a focus on overall good rather than hedonism, etc. etc.
My problem is this: in a State, we cede our rights, and in return, we get rights "back" according to the constitutional structure. In most cases, the vast majority has no say in this constitutional structure. In the US, for example, about fifty-five men came up with a constitutional structure that was imposed on everybody else. We didn't ask the Black slaves what their take was on the social contract, nor women, nor the indigenous people, or for that matter a whole sector of men who weren't the fifty-five. The Constitution was then ratified by states which included propertied voters only. That doesn't sound terribly representative to me. And I think it's generally conceded that while these men caught a glimpse of what people's rights are, they had a distinctly lacking view, and came up with a constitutional structure that reflected that lacking view. Of course, because the other groups were left out, they became underclasses, and were oppressed by the State.
Additionally, I would point out that ultimate power over rights lies with the State. The Department of Homeland Security could decide my dissent is getting to be a bit much and then disappear me to Syria to be tortured, maybe murdered. This might be unjust, or unconstitutional, but it doesn't really matter, since that State can do it. I have no right to life or liberty beyond what the State decides to give me.
I also feel like Chomsky's "union-based" society is too pluralistic, but again, that's just me.
This is very interesting. Please explain. To me, it sounds like a society that includes free assocation and democratic institutions. If I don't like the decision of my workplace, I can freely associate with others. I'd prefer that kind of plurality to a one-entity society based around a State in which I don't have free association and the institutions are not a democratic as they ought to be.
Perhaps, but the truth is, groups are generally worse because of their inherent coercive power. That's part of the reason why I dislike Chomsky's argumentation.
I'm not saying I'm a big Chomsky fan, although I like some of what he writes. I am, however, interested in what parts of his argumentation you dislike. As far as I can tell, Chomsky argues the following:
1) Workers should enjoy the product of their labor, as opposed to some value less than the product of their labor.
2) To do this, they must control the means of production.
3) To control the means of production, a coordinator class like state planners of the liberal or Marxist-Leninist variety cannot exist; in fact, no State of any kind can exist.
4) Premise 3 implies that the workers, through workplace democracy should control their enterprises.
5) On the basis of free association, such workplace democracies can be just.
6) If workers enjoy the product of their labor, we can say that products could be freely traded justly.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Read some Alexis de Tocqueville, get back to me on that. The "general will" theory is entirely unjust because it fundamentally shunts the minority. Lockean systems check this because they often have some counterbalancing mechanism (f.e. the United States' form of representative government that checks the power of the majority).
Don't be mistaken; I fully understand the dangers of adhering to one particular school of political thought. I was just pulling a major theme of Rousseau's out as a point against anarchy, that it doesn't protect the group at all.
Perhaps, but the truth is, groups are generally worse because of their inherent coercive power. That's part of the reason why I dislike Chomsky's argumentation.
That's why we have checks and balances, between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They're groups, but they're equal, and they keep each other in line. At least in theory
The only other option you have is Despotism, really.
That's why we have checks and balances, between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They're groups, but they're equal, and they keep each other in line. At least in theory
Well, the Executive branch is the only one capable of doing anything, because neither of the other two has an army. It's power is limited only by the army's respect for the constitutional structure. While our army's respect for the constitutional structure is very high, in many places it is not, or was not, such as Pinochet's Chile, for example. Which is why I cite the Executive branch as the most important functionally.
Another point, and this came out of my government class, is that the Executive can perform, in theory, some legislative and judicial functions independent of their other branches by means of its implementation and interpretation of the polices of the other branches.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
1) Workers should enjoy the product of their labor, as opposed to some value less than the product of their labor.
2) To do this, they must control the means of production.
This does not follow. They could simply be paid according to the value of their labor and the value of what they produced.
4) Premise 3 implies that the workers, through workplace democracy should control their enterprises.
I would argue that many, if not most, workers are not really qualified to run--or even to participate in running--a workplace.
Lastly, how would this work in the service sector of the economy?
Also,
I'm not saying I'm a big Chomsky fan
I lulz'd.
EDIT:
Quote from Lostandthedamned »
Reading up on the societies that are considered anarchistic it seems that far from having no ruling system they have progressed to Direct Democracy (more in the style of Athenian Democracy) rather than Representative democracy which is the form of government for most of the Western World.
In most cases it would be impossible at the moment for each member of a whole country to be involved in the decision making processes due to practical considerations. When a community is quite small there is no problem with gathering everyone together periodically to decide and vote on issues.
Over a larger scale eg across the USA, this would be impossible so you elect a member who is supposed to take his locations decision to the national councils. However at the moment it appears that in most western nations the party politics system means that most members tend to vote along with their party line rather than as an expression of their constituants will. There are even accepted systems in place to ensure this happens.
With the advancement of technology it could be the case that in the future it is possible for larger societies to move away from this sort of government to a system that allows each voter to have their say on any bill by allowing everyone to not only be present during discussions but also to vote on each issue.
One of the primary benefits of our current system is that it represents the majority without trampling minorities. This is something which direct democracy cannot reasonably do on a large scale. It may, perhaps, be workable on a smaller, community-based scale, but no amount of technological advances will make it a viable option for a nation of over 300 million people.
Reading up on the societies that are considered anarchistic it seems that far from having no ruling system they have progressed to Direct Democracy (more in the style of Athenian Democracy) rather than Representative democracy which is the form of government for most of the Western World
an·ar·chism (ăn'ər-kĭz'əm) n.
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
"Anarchistic Government" is, by definition, a misnomer. Anarchists reject all forms of government.
Well, the Executive branch is the only one capable of doing anything, because neither of the other two has an army. It's power is limited only by the army's respect for the constitutional structure. While our army's respect for the constitutional structure is very high, in many places it is not, or was not, such as Pinochet's Chile, for example. Which is why I cite the Executive branch as the most important functionally.
Another point, and this came out of my government class, is that the Executive can perform, in theory, some legislative and judicial functions independent of their other branches by means of its implementation and interpretation of the polices of the other branches.
That's why I made sure to place "At least in theory" at the end of my statement, because I know that they've never been truly equal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And what is to ensure that such a thing is respected?
"I would rather deal with one tyrant [or tyrannical institution] 3000 miles away, than 3000 tyrants one mile away."
Anarchy has proven, time and time again, to be a horrendous state of affairs. When Rome's power waned, and it could no longer support some of its frontiers, violence and theft were rampant. Also, without the state, literacy declains as people no longer have one set language to learn and communicate with. A decrease in literacy leads to an increase in prejiduce, and even more violence.
Examine also, the state of affairs the US was in under the Articles of Confederation. Virginia and Pennsylvania nearly went to war. Rampant inflation caused an enormous amount of poverty as there was no backing to any curency whatsoever.
Left to their own devices, human behavior degenerates into mob rule. And mob rule has lead to some of the worst conditions in human history.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Those aren't anarchist societies.
Plus, tell me this: Without government, who builds bridges, or mantains highways?
Exactly. Union-based anarchies are attempts at coming up a scenario where everyone in society enjoys maximum utility, but which depends on the honest subscription of each member. How to deal with social malevolence is an irritating afterthought to the anarchist, and usually they'll just brush off the entire issue of social malevolence as if their system "takes care" of that as a side effect.
Uh...the people who own the land?
Oh, so they have the resources to build bridges for cars and such?
The role of the federal government was limited. It was there to provide and to protect the states as a whole but not to interfere with how they worked.
It was a meeting place that rep's from the different states could come and talk about ideas and pass laws that would be bennifitial to most.
however over the years the everyone has turned to the federal government and given it more power. something that the founding fathers would have been upset on i imagine. they want the states to run themselves not have the federal government over their head all the time.
states rights has become a big issue of late.
the capital was set up so that if states had an issue and couldn't resolve it then they could bring it before the federal government and they would make a ruling decision and apply it across the board.
an example would be transport of goods. some states refused to let other transport their good through. or they charged embargo taxes to do so. it was debated and the federal government said they couldn't do that. that free trade was provided under the constitution.
now the federal government is a bloated enitity with to much power. it has more power than what it was suppose to have.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Why not? Unless you were talking about the point as it indirectly relates to government (ie. by enforcement of laws)...
Irritating afterthought? Human nature is far more than an irritating afterthought, it's a risk to every member of the species in an anarchist 'society'; or whatever term you use for a group of anarchists. Union-based anarchy is a misnomer, really, as anarchy itself is an attempt to abolish any form of government.
Anarchy places far too much faith in the individual. If human beings were capable of governing themselves, or as a group of true equals, true socialism and true communism would work. Self-sufficient Utopian society could exist. But the truth is, the state is necessary for any type of real stability, and those who think otherwise are deluded.
Also, a quick question for would-be anarchists: why are you still living with the rest of society? If you crave isolation from the institution so much, why not live in the wilderness, like an animal?
Presumably because it wouldn't do much, and anarchist != hermit?
Well, if there's a 0% chance of society going anarchist, and you're that oppressed by the government, why not? Besides, if we were reduced to anarchy, what alternative would you have? Dealing with other people would be too dangerous, since they'd be liable to try and kill you for whatever you're worth.
Or beneficial to their state, and their state alone. The Articles of Confederacy failed miserably because they had a weak, almost non-existent national government. Because of that, it was extremely easy for the states to govern themselves any way they saw fit. People's rights were being trampled on. Property rights, economic rights, civil rights, etc..
a. the framers are not a homogeneous entity. They are a group of different people from different states with different opinions. Hamilton and Madison probably would probably not mind, while Jefferson might.
b. Please demonstrate that the federal government is "over their head all the time."
Again, look at what happened under the Articles of Confederacy. Contracts and interactions between states had no arbiter, and resulted in the abuse of many citizen's economic and property rights as well destroying what little unity the states had, all the while pitting the states against each other and almost having them come to blows. You malign regulation of interstate commerce, but without a national government to regulate that you might very not have much of the food that stocks your kitchen or all the other goods you buy because all the states would be feuding and competing with each other as they did under the Articles of Confederacy.
Again, please demonstrate this. Certainly, I agree with you that the federal government has expanded its reach and jurisdiction too much (especially executive powers in the last 20 years, especially the last 7).
That said, the same problem one experiences in an anarchy one experienced under the Articles, except a tyranny of the majority replaces a despotic state. Not that a tyranny of the majority is an impossibility with a strong federal government, but its even more of a likelihood in a system such as that under the articles were there is no system by which to check those state governments. Under that system, the state governments have extremely arbitrary power.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Because it's not "no government or death/exile"? Like anything else, it's costs vs. benefits. Maybe some people are willing to be hermits. What does this have to do with anything, though?
Now you're talking about widespread anarchy, or what?
Your right, Anarchy != Chaos. They were Anarchy in the sense that there was hardly any/no restriction on power, just like under a system of Anarchy. There was also chaos, but that was a product of that heavily decentralized and unregulated power. It wasn't what I was trying to conflate with Anarchy.
it was meant so that the individual states could get together and come to a benefitial solution to the problem instead of fighting each other.
that was suppose to be the roll. instead we have turned the federal government into the all powerful entity that it was not suppose to be.
the founding fathers didn't want a localized power base. they didn't want one part of the government becoming a sink hole of power. that is what the federal government is now, because now the people no longer are in charge of the government.
are elected officials do whatever they want reguardless of what the people think. that is why the founding fathers wanted to keep the federal part of it as minimal as possible.
that states before had no issues in supporting themselves. now they are constantly dependant on getting federal money. heck the federal government itself was suppose to be a self maintaining body.
for the longest time it was.
after the federal government made the rulings and passed the laws then yes it did work. most of those laws are still in effect today. they are now enforced though.
laws only work if they are enforced once they are enforced then they work. it doesn't matter if you have a sign that says keep off the grass. unless you enforce that law then people are going to walk on the grass just to say they did it.
anarchy is the worst possible solution. yet if you look at it that was what started this country. it was anarchy against england. it was a whole bunch of things. the founding fathers tried to make sure that there were checks and balances built into the system.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I dislike the arguments of the anarchists/minarchists because I subscribe to Locke/Hobbes' State of Nature theory. I think (all of my personal Lockean libertarian leanings aside) that there's such a thing as "too much" freedom, and that's really what the SoN implies: a state where individuals can't be trusted with their own rights. I think the state is necessary in the way that Locke envisioned it: that it is necessary to have a central power that regulates rights to a degree and provides protection for the rest, and without it, there are few ways to guarantee just outcomes.
Plus, I think that the states (or lack thereof) Chomsky and Co. argue for are unjust at a certain point, in that it naturally undermines the very fundamental need for an equal schema of rights. For example, in an anarchy (Chomsky), there are going to be some who have more rights than others by nature of being stronger. While one might argue that there are rights discrepancies in our modern societies (mostly based on wealth differences), I would say those are not explicit rights imbalances, whereas those would be much clearer in an anarchy/minarchy (for example, they would be based on fundamental things such as genetic advantage, rather than exterior things such as position in society). This is why I favor a state in which the primary purpose is rights protection, and that if those rights can't be protected, they lose there value and therefore there are legitimate outcomes. I think of it as a rectification between the gap between Rawls and Nozick, but that's just me. I then extend it a bit, thinking of rights protection in terms of utility, but with a focus on overall good rather than hedonism, etc. etc.
I also feel like Chomsky's "union-based" society is too pluralistic, but again, that's just me.
Now, to respond:
Read some Alexis de Tocqueville, get back to me on that. The "general will" theory is entirely unjust because it fundamentally shunts the minority. Lockean systems check this because they often have some counterbalancing mechanism (f.e. the United States' form of representative government that checks the power of the majority).
Perhaps, but the truth is, groups are generally worse because of their inherent coercive power. That's part of the reason why I dislike Chomsky's argumentation.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Please, enlighten me as to this arbitrary power of the federal government. The states do need more power under the current system, your right, but a weak federal government leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes; its better to err on the side of too much federal power, which is more easily checked by individual states and the populace in general, then too weak a government were you end up with a free-for-all that quickly degenerates and becomes difficult to stop. With a strong federal government, the power is heavily centralized, but so is the state power and power and influence of the people.
Again, the framers are not a homogeneous entity. Some wanted an absolutely minimal federal government, some didn't. That said, politicians very much care about what the people think, as it gets them elected. Any failure you see in regards to lack of input by the populace is a failure of civic virtue in that populace, not as a symptom of runaway federal government.
That's it. Supporting themselves. They had no issues supporting themselves, at the cost of the other states. The states act as selfish entities, and so does the federal government. How do we solve the problem of factionalism and selfishness in government? We pit those factions against each other in a power struggle, this prevents the tyranny of the majority I spoke of in my other post. Just as we do this in the federal government and the state government, so to do we do this with the interplay between the federal and state governments. The supremacy clause is not a death sentence, its a necessary provision to keep the states in check. You seem to severely under-estimate the effect and influence individual states have.
Yes, and? This is only proving my point further. Without a federal government, you can't have anyone that can keep you off the grass. With a weak federal government, they don't have the power to keep you off the grass.
First, I have no clue how checks and balances, in the way you've thrown it out there, is relevant to the discussion. Secondly, the point of the revolution was not anarchy, it was to cut out the overhead and unfair treatment of a distant, powerful, national government. That is were this irrational fear of big government comes from. The English government was tyrannical because it was not implemented with this idea in mind. Our government is, and provides safeguards against such. Like you said, checks and balances. Our government is a machine, and it requires input to function properly. Without civic virtue, it fails to function in a capacity that it was intended to. Thats how we end up with Augustus as president.
Edit: Much love for Xyre for articulating exactly what I think.
What I think you are talking about doesn't really make sense. Maybe it's because I have been doing my Mechanics and Physics homework for the past ten hours and it is now 2:20 AM my time. So please forgive me for any incoherence. But having unrestricted power seems to imply some kind of controlling private power (i.e. state). So I don't see how "no restriction on power" can constitute anarchy. Anarchy doesn't eliminate power (since such is impossible), rather it seeks to return it to individuals themselves to that they can exercise power locally, in democratic, free associations, rather than having power imposed on them in a pseudo- or non-democratic way with involuntary associations.
What I think you are talking about doesn't really make sense. Maybe it's because I have been doing my Mechanics and Physics homework for the past ten hours and it is now 2:20 AM my time. So please forgive me for any incoherence. But having unrestricted power seems to imply some kind of controlling private power (i.e. state). So I don't see how "no restriction on power" can constitute anarchy. Anarchy doesn't eliminate power (since such is impossible), rather it seeks to return it to individuals themselves to that they can exercise power locally, in democratic, free associations, rather than having power imposed on them in a pseudo- or non-democratic way with involuntary associations.
Your libertarian fear of group-think is quite valid, and I share that fear, which is why I am a skeptic of the State.
I don't really think you can know what the State of Nature is. You've never seen it; you've just seen the general behavior of human beings within a coercive system, and to assume they act exactly the same way in a non-coercive system does not seem to follow a priori, at least in my view. And anyway, isn't right-libertarianism a minarchist/anarchist philosophy? Where Nozick supports to minimal state and Rothbard is in favor of no state with a market of defense firms?
The only "too much" freedom that exists is that which infringes on the rights of others. That's pretty much accepted within both left and right libertarian theory. However, I think there are a few basic problems with social contract theory. I may get into these points later, but I am currently too tired.
No. Because you're talking about capabilities, not rights. That no external restriction of the State exists does not imply that people have more rights. People have the same rights they had before: life and liberty to do that which does not kill or infringe on the liberty of others. Anyway, the strength of some over others is checked by voluntary association and direct democracy. If someone starts to lug his huge balls around, the others can just shun him and refuse to trade with him, and defend themselves when he tries to take what he needs by force, in which case he's forced to play ball with everyone else. Of course, he's free not to, but the consequences are his to accept.
Sixteen Tons, anyone? The truck system created a very specific rights imbalance, in that those who owned the company owned the liberty of others (which shouldn't happen under libertarian theory), and those who worked for the companies owned nothing. In fact, by virtue of their debt slavery, they were owned in the literal sense. How these imbalances would be more pronounced in an anarchic society is beyond me, since I don't really think anyone would tolerate something even roughly approximating the truck system. The way I see it, the truck system was maintained by the State, in that the company could call in the goons, or the cops would simply beat up strikers and so on. A situation without cops beating up strikers and with workers sniping company goons from the hills seems to remedy this rights imbalance, whereas the State seems to tolerate or perpetuate it. I'm not saying this situation exists in many places today, but simply taken as a historic example, still technically modern, has existed before. In fact, it exists still in so-called communist China.
My problem is this: in a State, we cede our rights, and in return, we get rights "back" according to the constitutional structure. In most cases, the vast majority has no say in this constitutional structure. In the US, for example, about fifty-five men came up with a constitutional structure that was imposed on everybody else. We didn't ask the Black slaves what their take was on the social contract, nor women, nor the indigenous people, or for that matter a whole sector of men who weren't the fifty-five. The Constitution was then ratified by states which included propertied voters only. That doesn't sound terribly representative to me. And I think it's generally conceded that while these men caught a glimpse of what people's rights are, they had a distinctly lacking view, and came up with a constitutional structure that reflected that lacking view. Of course, because the other groups were left out, they became underclasses, and were oppressed by the State.
Additionally, I would point out that ultimate power over rights lies with the State. The Department of Homeland Security could decide my dissent is getting to be a bit much and then disappear me to Syria to be tortured, maybe murdered. This might be unjust, or unconstitutional, but it doesn't really matter, since that State can do it. I have no right to life or liberty beyond what the State decides to give me.
This is very interesting. Please explain. To me, it sounds like a society that includes free assocation and democratic institutions. If I don't like the decision of my workplace, I can freely associate with others. I'd prefer that kind of plurality to a one-entity society based around a State in which I don't have free association and the institutions are not a democratic as they ought to be.
I'm not saying I'm a big Chomsky fan, although I like some of what he writes. I am, however, interested in what parts of his argumentation you dislike. As far as I can tell, Chomsky argues the following:
1) Workers should enjoy the product of their labor, as opposed to some value less than the product of their labor.
2) To do this, they must control the means of production.
3) To control the means of production, a coordinator class like state planners of the liberal or Marxist-Leninist variety cannot exist; in fact, no State of any kind can exist.
4) Premise 3 implies that the workers, through workplace democracy should control their enterprises.
5) On the basis of free association, such workplace democracies can be just.
6) If workers enjoy the product of their labor, we can say that products could be freely traded justly.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Don't be mistaken; I fully understand the dangers of adhering to one particular school of political thought. I was just pulling a major theme of Rousseau's out as a point against anarchy, that it doesn't protect the group at all.
That's why we have checks and balances, between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. They're groups, but they're equal, and they keep each other in line. At least in theory
The only other option you have is Despotism, really.
Well, the Executive branch is the only one capable of doing anything, because neither of the other two has an army. It's power is limited only by the army's respect for the constitutional structure. While our army's respect for the constitutional structure is very high, in many places it is not, or was not, such as Pinochet's Chile, for example. Which is why I cite the Executive branch as the most important functionally.
Another point, and this came out of my government class, is that the Executive can perform, in theory, some legislative and judicial functions independent of their other branches by means of its implementation and interpretation of the polices of the other branches.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
This does not follow. They could simply be paid according to the value of their labor and the value of what they produced.
I would argue that many, if not most, workers are not really qualified to run--or even to participate in running--a workplace.
Lastly, how would this work in the service sector of the economy?
Also,
I lulz'd.
EDIT:
One of the primary benefits of our current system is that it represents the majority without trampling minorities. This is something which direct democracy cannot reasonably do on a large scale. It may, perhaps, be workable on a smaller, community-based scale, but no amount of technological advances will make it a viable option for a nation of over 300 million people.
an·ar·chism (ăn'ər-kĭz'əm)
n.
That's why I made sure to place "At least in theory" at the end of my statement, because I know that they've never been truly equal