We already have anarchy.

Imagine there were no governments. Then imagine some group of people decides (voluntarily) that they are the "government". Call it whatever you like, it's their choice. And others could choose to acknowledge that government, pay it taxes, obey its laws, submit to its policies, join its armies. We'd still have anarchy, just punctuated by people deluding themselves that they were the Dutchy of Fenwick or Canada or the Republican National Committee.

But what if that "government" tries to impose its will on non-participants? Well, what are they going to do to stop it?

They can argue that the "governments" are illegitimate, that they have no authority, but that doesn't make a truncheon any softer or a jail cell any more porous. They can fight back, but firepower will decide the issue. In practical terms we'd be where we are now.

So how do we get to that utopian ideal of self-organizing power structures that dissolve when they no longer serve the purpose they emerged for, of people engaging in only voluntary transactions, the dead weights of armies and ministries lifted from the shoulders of mankind? We look at the differences between the state we want and the state we're in, and understand that there will always be somebody gathering people around him to form a power structure. And that power structure is nothing without the acknowledgment of people around it.

Without that acknowledgment what is a cop but a guy in a clown suit waving his arms at traffic? He can't shoot everybody who ignores him, especially if some of them shoot back. A subpoena has no more weight than a garage sale poster if it's ignored. What gives a government power is people accepting that it has power.

So rejoice! We have anarchy, it's just in a degenerate state. And pretty much always will be.

the show sons of anarchy is pretty decent.

 oldslabsides wrote:
 
Amen brother.

 Beaker wrote: 

 What do you think has made me what I am today?

As I've explained previously in these threads, I love the people I love, I find some others worthy of certain respect and I find some highly entertaining, but for the most part, people scare the hell out of me.

 dmax wrote: 
A perfect example of the natural human state of anarchy.  There are some successes there too though:

Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm 

Although as I said earlier, I'm willing to pay a higher price for civilization.  What is the true cost of a cheap cell phone?

The Most Dangerous Place in the World

Somalia is a state governed only by anarchy. A graveyard of foreign-policy failures, it has known just six months of peace in the past two decades. Now, as the country's endless chaos threatens to engulf an entire region, the world again simply watches it burn.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_most_dangerous_place_in_the_world  

I'll take our flawed Democratic Republic over this option. 
 

 Manbird wrote: 

*edit*

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I hadn't realized your affiliation with those two words - no offense intended.

There is something idyllic-seeming about the bush people, isn't there?

 dmax wrote: 
Exactly. He who smelt it, dealt it. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Naw, we made our big mistake when we learned to smelt metal. Ah, for the good ole days.

Anarchy, and its little brother, Libertarianism, are fine for the tough and self-sufficient.
For those temporarily afflicted with illness (physical or mental) or age or even poor geography or poor soil, it leaves them open to be preyed upon by those more capable.

Like communism is a neat theoretical idea, so's anarchy. In fact, so's the idea that all our daughters are princesses.

But it's still not a real-world possibility - unless you're in Somalia.

I'll pass. 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Right on. BTW, where can I get one of these posters? Zazzle? 

 Proclivities wrote: 

Ask anyone hereabouts - I'm the poster boy for both of these words.

The existance of the bush people you speak of is - IMO - far closer to our "natural state" than what we have now.  I think we exceeded our limitations when we invented agriculture and settled down in one place to begin our unsustainable breeding program which - btw - seems to be reaching its inevitable fruition.

 oldslabsides wrote:  
I agree, having "better humans" would make many things possible, but the flaws and limitations of the human race —  as they are and have been for a very long time — are all we have to work with.  At the risk of seeming misanthropic or pessimistic (which I do not believe myself to be), I believe that a substantial portion of the population will not do "the right thing" without a law or an authority telling them to do so. 
Ironically, a group such as the Bush People of the Kalahari, while considered "primitive" and "isolated", seem in many ways, a group closest to advancing to that level of moral existence.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I saw that, and I agree that it's a nice idea. However, we have a couple of thousand years of history that indicates it's not our natural state. 

The whole idea of "government" as an evil entity is flawed. Government is just an extension of us (good and bad). If we have no official .gov and we live next to each other and we put up a fence to define our mutually agreed upon boundaries, we have formed our own government. We put down a set of rules that govern our behavior. Now  when I cut down part of the fence to improve my view and then cut down a tree on your side of the fence for the same purpose, we need a 3rd party to arbitrate the dispute (I never agreed to let your tree grow into my view).  We just grew government by %50.

We all have different goals and so we need to be able to compromise. This is what government should be for. If it's not working, it's up to us to go fix it.  I'm all for doing the right thing, but often there will be differences of opinion on what is right. The ability to compromise and continue to work together even though we don't all get our way all the time is also 'the right thing'. This part of governing seems to be lost on our current set of representatives, but again, I think we should just fix it, not start over w/ a clean slate. 

The notion that if we did not have government the masses — and individuals — would conduct themselves in a more  honorable and ethical manner ("doing right") seems to turn logic on its head.  I recognize, however, that it is possibly true, so we discuss this theory.  Nonetheless, it seems illogical because it presumes that the primary reason that groups or individuals are acting in a manner contrary to the collective good is because they are either being adversely influenced by the government or they are chafing under the government reins and seeking to rebel.  So, the theory appears to go, if we eliminate the government, the people, acting individually or in groups, will no longer have a need to act contrary to the collective good. Instead, freed of the coercive goverment, they will revert back to acting completely in their own self-interest and that somehow will conform to acting more in line with the collective good. (There, of course, would still be outliers; I recognize that.)  Still, I doubt that government is the primary and virtually sole source of the thoughts and feelings that give rise to anti-social behavior.  And we are not just talking bout anti-social behavior in the worst sense (i.e., physical crime, etc).  We also are talking about competing interests and focusing folk upon making compromises for the collective good — seeing beyond one's self-interest.  Acting in one's self-interest is not a panacea; it should not be a trump card.  

The trick is to allow for as much individual freedom as possible without undermining the collective good.  Laws are not just coercive; they also are aspirational.  That often gets lost in the conversation, but it is an important point. If we are talking about concepts — foundations upon which to build — I favor the notion of a society based upon the rule of law, not the rule of men.  We may have strayed too far from that in practice, but I don't think the model itself has been proven to be suspect, much less the root of our problems.    

Another point:  No matter what, there will be some organization of people living as groups or in close proximity — that is government.  For those who have been around long enough, you might remember some of the postings Face (Not Applicable) made.  I had a conversation with him here in which he eventually conceded that he was talking about removing government as we know it and allowing groups to voluntarily form that would resemble something akin to Indian tribes.  Indian tribes, however, were not without government. Thehy had hierarchy and they had rules.  And, even assuming this is a good idea, how do we turn back the clock to allow for this?  We have no room for nomadic tribes.  The great, great majority of people are not living off the land or in the wild. Will we start by giving up the notion of ownership of real property?  How is it going to work?     

Edit:  I see the growing fundamental distrust of our government as the specter that scares me. It is getting to the point where the brilliant framework set out for us by the brave and wise men who established this independent country is being seen as wishful thinking and seriously flawed — or, even worse, as some diabolical power grab.  That framework, however, is based upon government by the people.  More and more, we tend to view our government as being apart from us, akin to a voracious and inanimate object that continually thwarts the good intentions of the people.  Could the Founders have been this wrong?  I think the model is sound; still brilliant.  We just have to step up to the plate as individuals and do our part.                           

 

 

       

 islander wrote: 

You perhaps missed the part of Zeff's post that espoused lack of government without the implication of chaos most people associate with anarchy.  That's the one I'm talking about.  He need better humans.

People should do the right thing because it's the right thing, not because it's the law.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
There are many places without a functioning government. They tend to devolve into lawless wastelands and then a feudal set of warlords take control of a region.

I personally like being able to drive from one end of town to the other, or from one end of the country to the other without having to worry about which group to bribe or which kidnappers to watch out for.  

Yeah, there are many downsides to our system. But the fact that we can go on the internet and bitch about them openly tells me we have the best compromise available.  We should still keep working to improve it, but let's not forget that lots of people literally die trying to get a shot at our set of opportunities. Maybe we already have a set of 'better humans' we just need a little more organization... careful with that bathwater.

 

 miamizsun wrote: 
One hand washes the other...  And the Rothchilds own it all...

 miamizsun wrote: 
True.
Regards as well.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Pro, don't have much time right now, my work day is getting busy, however the robber barons you speak of did their deeds with full complicity of the government, in other words they bribe our government to write favorable legislation that "legally" enables them to rob us. Some call it lobbying. Follow the money.

Regards