Idea of a stateless society.

[Quag]

Yes, You will note that each heading states anarchism and not anarchy. Have you forgotten that you were the one supporting the word anarchy.

??????

you wrote

Anarchism is not government going away, it is a philosophy of governance.

I provided 4 definitions of ANARCHISM that all say Anarchism is the idea of society without government.
So yes it is about government going away.
No where in my post did I mention the word anarchy.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

??????

you wrote

I provided 4 definitions of ANARCHISM that all say Anarchism is the idea of society without government.
So yes it is about government going away.
No where in my post did I mention the word anarchy.

Not... exactly. It's about a group of people who make up the government going away, yes. But that is typically replaced by horizontal rule (i.e. everyone is part of the government). Thus, in theory, this gets rid of structures of forced association, since each individual holds power within the governing system.

How that works at our scale of size I have no idea, but that's the idea.

 

[Quag]

Not... exactly. It's about a group of people who make up the government going away, yes. But that is typically replaced by horizontal rule (i.e. everyone is part of the government). Thus, in theory, this gets rid of structures of forced association, since each individual holds power within the governing system.

How that works at our scale of size I have no idea, but that's the idea.

a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

It isn't about removing the people in charge but removing the institutions themselves.

 

[ataraxia]

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a Utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. Just like in a society with government; In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. But to be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherwordly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible.

Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases - in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society just because some people are bad, and a free society would not make them good.



"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one"~Robert LeFeyre

Well we could try an experiment on a smaller scale and try anarchy first in your workplace, or your kid's school, or your neighborhood homeowner's association. Give it a whirl and see how it works out. If the results are good, let us know and we can try it on a larger scale. Good luck.

 

[TobyOne]

I'm sympathetic to the anarchist point of view right up to the point they start hiding behind masks and breaking things that aren't theirs.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It isn't about removing the people in charge but removing the institutions themselves.

Yes. But there is still a concept of governing; it's just done without institutions, which are generally run by the few.

Anarchist societies do still have rules and ways of managing themselves.

 

[Quag]

Yes. But there is still a concept of governing; it's just done without institutions, which are generally run by the few.

Anarchist societies do still have rules and ways of managing themselves.

a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Anarchism is society without govt.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes. But there is still a concept of governing; it's just done without institutions, which are generally run by the few.

Anarchist societies do still have rules and ways of managing themselves.

A society with any kind of rules is by definition not anarchist. You may be thinking of "written rules". There are many societies with unwritten rules of conduct, expectations, and socially acceptable behavior whose violations are punished by the society in various direct and indirect ways. These are not anarchist societies and sometimes can even be very oppressive.

Since the Bablylonian Code of Hammurabi, people have found rules and laws which are meticulously written down tend to do better.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Go somewhere and try to establish a stateless society. If it works others will follow.

Having an idea that sounds nice is not enough. It has to be tested and proven in the real world.

 

[JackA]

First and foremost, although I am an anarchist, I am not a Utopian. There is no social system which will utterly eliminate evil. Just like in a society with government; In a stateless society, there will still be rape, theft, murder and abuse. But to be fair, just and reasonable, we must compare a stateless society not to some standard of otherwordly perfection, but rather to the world as it already is. The moral argument for a stateless society includes the reality that it will eliminate a large amount of institutionalized violence and abuse, not that it will result in a perfectly peaceful world, which of course is impossible.

Anarchy can be viewed as a cure for cancer and heart disease, not a prescription for endlessly perfect health. It would be unreasonable to oppose a cure for cancer because such a cure did not eliminate all other possible diseases - in the same way, we cannot reasonably oppose a stateless society just because some people are bad, and a free society would not make them good.



"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one"~Robert LeFeyre

How in your stateless society would "rape, theft, murder and abuse" be dealt with if not by government in some form? LeFeyre's comment is merely glib. Even if men were perfectly good their society would require organization of different kinds in order to be a society and civic organization is the nature of government.

 

[ataraxia]

It seems that many Americans are so impressed with the success of "free market" capitalism, and lack of regulations, and so frightened by the cold war era oppressiveness of the Soviet Union, that they have now come to the conclusion that laws are always bad and anarchy (in their mind, the same thing as "freedom") is always best. A good example of black and white thinking: if a little salt is good in my food, then emptying the whole container of Morton's Salt in my dish should be that much better, right?

 

[soylentgreen]

??????

you wrote

I provided 4 definitions of ANARCHISM that all say Anarchism is the idea of society without government.
So yes it is about government going away.
No where in my post did I mention the word anarchy.

As i said , a dictionary is a nice place fror an amatuer like you to start from. They give a basic concept without bothering with details. However they also allow for the uneducated who just read headlines and then make crap up, much like you are doing.

And please do not be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well you started of using the word anarchy and have only swapped over too using the word anarchist when it became evident that you did not even know what the correct word was.

And no, only a chidish simplistic view of anarchism would consider it being about government going away or a society without governence.

Anarchism is about shifting the power base we have now with a one centralised government system to a more dispersed and power shared base. It is not about ridding ourselves of governments, nor is about everyone acting like they live harmony.

Anarcho cooperatives exist through out the world and as businesses they thrive as well as any of the centralised authoritative capitalist businesses. They are real attempts at an an anarchist philosophy. Where as all you have is an easily disputable opinion of a dictionary that allows you to assume a theory of minimilist government means no government.

The only people silly enough to put up a no government at all type argument are those that support Laissez-faire. Of which there are no living examples of because itis a fantasy.

 

[soylentgreen]

Not... exactly. It's about a group of people who make up the government going away, yes. But that is typically replaced by horizontal rule (i.e. everyone is part of the government). Thus, in theory, this gets rid of structures of forced association, since each individual holds power within the governing system.

How that works at our scale of size I have no idea, but that's the idea.

It does not work at your scale or size. And, try not to shoot the messanger here but, considering the state of your government i am not sure an argument can be made for any government to work at that scale or size. One government to rule them all. sounds like a good line for a movie.

 

[Quag]

As i said , a dictionary is a nice place fror an amatuer like you to start from. They give a basic concept without bothering with details. However they also allow for the uneducated who just read headlines and then make crap up, much like you are doing.

And please do not be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well you started of using the word anarchy and have only swapped over too using the word anarchist when it became evident that you did not even know what the correct word was.

And no, only a chidish simplistic view of anarchism would consider it being about government going away or a society without governence.

Anarchism is about shifting the power base we have now with a one centralised government system to a more dispersed and power shared base. It is not about ridding ourselves of governments, nor is about everyone acting like they live harmony.

Anarcho cooperatives exist through out the world and as businesses they thrive as well as any of the centralised authoritative capitalist businesses. They are real attempts at an an anarchist philosophy. Where as all you have is an easily disputable opinion of a dictionary that allows you to assume a theory of minimilist government means no government.

The only people silly enough to put up a no government at all type argument are those that support Laissez-faire. Of which there are no living examples of because itis a fantasy.

Actually a dictionary gives the definition of words. If you hold onto a philosophy that doesn't fit that definition then you should use some other term to describe your philosophy because anarchism doesn't fit.
There is nothing silly about it except that you think somehow you get to redefine words to fit suit your whims.

 

[soylentgreen]

Actually a dictionary gives the definition of words. If you hold onto a philosophy that doesn't fit that definition then you should use some other term to describe your philosophy because anarchism doesn't fit.
There is nothing silly about it except that you think somehow you get to redefine words to fit suit your whims.

No, the dictionary just gives a simplistic explanation . You have to do more than a few minutes of reaearch googling dictionary defintitions to get an idea of what you are talking about.

Yours is basically nothing more than think up a stupid way of doing something and then insisting it has to be done that way.

You should also try to keep in mind that this is philososphy something you're supposed to actually think about. Not just copy and paste the first definition and blindly without thought accept the first thing you read. Nor is it something where you just believe whatever you're told like a religion. You are expected to take information that you have got from a source like a dictionary and expand on it. Not regurgitate it verbatim and expect anyone to believe it just because it is written in a dictionary.

 

[Quag]

No, the dictionary just gives a simplistic explanation . You have to do more than a few minutes of reaearch googling dictionary defintitions to get an idea of what you are talking about.

Yours is basically nothing more than think up a stupid way of doing something and then insisting it has to be done that way.

You should also try to keep in mind that this is philososphy something you're supposed to actually think about. Not just copy and paste the first definition and blindly without thought accept the first thing you read. Nor is it something where you just believe whatever you're told like a religion. You are expected to take information that you have got from a source like a dictionary and expand on it. Not regurgitate it verbatim and expect anyone to believe it just because it is written in a dictionary.

The dictionarry goves a definition and I admit it is not an in depth explanation but you cannot go against the main pronciple of anarchism

a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

and still call it anarchims.
Thus you cannot claim that:

Anarchism is not government going away, it is a philosophy of governance.

And pretend you are actually talking about anarchism

You seem to be talking about some form of libertarianism, not anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

[soylentgreen]

The dictionarry goves a definition and I admit it is not an in depth explanation but you cannot go against the main pronciple of anarchism

and still call it anarchims.
Thus you cannot claim that:

And pretend you are actually talking about anarchism

I have not gone against the main principle of anarchism which is a minimalist style governance, not the ridiciulous no government at all crap you are pushing.

You seem to be talking about some form of libertarianism, not anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

This is somethiong i have already pointed out. Anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism. Where as all you are talking about is a simple disctionary definition that tells us nothing of any use about anarchism.

 

[Quag]

I have not gone against the main principle of anarchism which is a minimalist style governance, not the ridiciulous no government at all crap you are pushing.

Yes you are going against the main pronciple of anarchism because anarchism is BY DEFINITION about holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable

This is somethiong i have already pointed out. Anarchism is also known as libertarian socialism. Where as all you are talking about is a simple disctionary definition that tells us nothing of any use about anarchism.

No that is libertarian socialism not anarchism.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes you are going against the main pronciple of anarchism because anarchism is BY DEFINITION about holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable



No that is libertarian socialism not anarchism.

I really do not need some uneducated bit of crap spread by those who learn by being told what to think instead of thinking it through for themselves.

As i said. This is philosophy, a thinking persons game which you are unsuitable for as you simply take what your told to be true without thinking it through.

Anarchism is not one simple level as you would have it. It is an extreme left wing of librtarianism. Just as Laissez-faire is an extreme right wing version of libertarianism.

You do not even know the relationship of anarchism all you know is a simplistic nonsense version.

 

[Quag]

I really do not need some uneducated bit of crap spread by those who learn by being told what to think instead of thinking it through for themselves.

As i said. This is philosophy, a thinking persons game which you are unsuitable for as you simply take what your told to be true without thinking it through.

Anarchism is not one simple level as you would have it. It is an extreme left wing of librtarianism. Just as Laissez-faire is an extreme right wing version of libertarianism.

You do not even know the relationship of anarchism all you know is a simplistic nonsense version.

I apparently know a heck of a lot more about it than you because you dont even know what it is.

 

[soylentgreen]

I apparently know a heck of a lot more about it than you because you dont even know what it is.

Considering that your knowledge comes froma dictionary and a religious view towards believing and not questioning what you have read. I doubt that.

 

[Daisy]

t...ok...why is it every time I read this topic, I see "tasteless society"?:slapme::giggle1:

 

[ashurbanipal]

Just off the cuff:

It seems to me that there are two problems of government that relate to the topic of discussion:

1. The problem of asymmetric power unfairly used, and

2. The problem of wisdom and foolishness.

Both problems are just what they sound like. Some people acquire more power than others, and use that power to acquire still more power, in the process creating unjust circumstances. In a situation in which there are no governments, these powerful individuals become de facto rulers. Some people are also wiser than others--some, if given any power at all, screw things up for themselves and everyone else around them. Others make good decisions that benefit themselves and others with minimal ill consequences.

These problems intersect: how do we ensure that the people who have power are wise? It's disastrous when people who are unwise wield power. It's beneficial to everyone when people who are wise wield power. Of course, just how we get people who are wise in positions of power while denying those positions to those who are unwise is perhaps the first problem of government, the resultant of the two problems mentioned at the start of this post.

The solution anarchism proposes is to essentially equalize power among individuals. The first problem with doing so is that it places power in the hands of people who are unwise. At best, doing so minimizes the benefits to a society, and at worst, it elevates the negative effects. The second problem is that, in that situation, a certain kind of unwise person acquires relatively great power, and uses it to establish herself as a de facto ruler. Out of anarchy emerges hierarchical government, and it seems likely that bad hierarchical government will be the first to emerge.

What anarchists seem not to grasp is that their form of government was actual just before the start of the world's histories. The civilizations that emerged in the very first centuries as writing developed were probably a few iterations removed from complete anarchy, but they were heavily hierarchical with stunning differences in power and injustices that would probably surprise most contemporary folks. One (valid) way to conceive of history since then is as multiple experiments to try to solve the two problems of government first mentioned in this post. Anarchism seems to want to just wind the clock back and hope that things won't play out in much the same way. I think it's pretty obvious they will. So, anarchy is a bad idea.

 

[Quag]

Considering that your knowledge comes froma dictionary and a religious view towards believing and not questioning what you have read. I doubt that.

Actually it coems from the meaning of the term something you refuse to acknowledge
But enjoy feeling supirior in your error if it makes you feel better.

 

[soylentgreen]

Actually it coems from the meaning of the term something you refuse to acknowledge
But enjoy feeling supirior in your error if it makes you feel better.

No, it is just a dictionary meaning that should be only a starting point not the only definition your capable of giving. You have no clue about anarchism because you hour not interested in it. this thread is nothing more than a lie. You are using anarchism to promote the absudity of laissez-faire capitalism. but knowing it is a joke you need to hide it behind anarchism.