Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

[noblegas]

If there were no central form of government, do you think wars liked we had in the 20th century would be prevented or not occur very often? The more I think about, the more it makes sense to me; Think about it. Most of the participants involved in those major wars like WW1 , WW2, and the Vietnam war were drawn into those conflicts because to some degree, their country's government forced them to participate in those wars , whether their participation was beneficial for the individual or not and/or directly inflicted them or not; The conflicts did not directly affect most of the soldiers participating in whatever war was going on; Therefore, unnecessary manslaughter occurred on a vast scale; Alternative scenario: If we were in anarchical society where people hired their own source of protection rather than rely on a centralized police force everybody had to rely on, I think most conflicts would be local and not global and therefore mass slaughter would not ensue ; For example if person A had a dispute with person B about a source of petroleum popping out of the ground in who's territory , the conflict would be only between person A and person B, not person C, D, E, and every other letter not directly involved;

 

[russ_watters]

Well I suppose if there were no nations, there would be no organized warfare. But with anarchy everyone would constantly be at war with their neighbors!

What's the difference between 20 million killed in a single war and 20 million killed in local fighting?

Also, how much would it cost to hire someone to protect me? Heck, how would I make that money in the first place?! What if two of my neighbors got together and hired twice as much "protection" as me?

Anarchy as a system of government is naive daydreaming at best.

 

[noblegas]

Well I suppose if there were no nations, there would be no organized warfare. But with anarchy everyone would constantly be at war with their neighbors!

What's the difference between 20 million killed in a single war and 20 million killed in local fighting?

Also, how much would it cost to hire someone to protect me? Heck, how would I make that money in the first place?! What if two of my neighbors got together and hired twice as much "protection" as me?

Anarchy as a system of government is naive daydreaming at best.

Hey,don't tossed this ideology in the trashcan so quickly. I bet to the feudal serfs of Medieval Europe , political ideologies like a constitutional republic, property rights and individual liberty was a pipedream at best; I don't think everyone would constantly be at war because most people would not be fighting over the same conflicts , since most people would not be arguing over what petroleum reservoir is in whose territory because it does not affect them because its not in their territory; I say conflicts will range from minor conflicts to serious conflicts, depending on the region and the temperament of the individuals, , but never would you be coerced into fighting in a war that has nothing to do with you and there wouldn't be a seemingly omnipotent aggressor because people would not be coerced into financing the state; Like most of the commodities we buy food, shoes, cars, video games , the free-market will give you the option of choosing a police force who will provide the best services for your protection;prices would be decided by the market, whether the trade would be barter,i.e. providing a place for your protector to sleep in exchange for protection or providing service for some exchange of currency;

 

[CRGreathouse]

I would expect that the yearly deaths from combat would be at least ten times worse than during World War II, at least until the population reduction from starvation took its toll.

 

[noblegas]

I would expect that the yearly deaths from combat would be at least ten times worse than during World War II, at least until the population reduction from starvation took its toll.

How do you know the death toll will rise 10x as much than during world war II? Do you have any statistics or even anecdotes to back up such claims? I am not trying to imply that anarchial societies would be utopias, I just think the death toll will not be as high as it currently has been for the past 100 years because masses of people would not likely support one state that would give that state powers that are potentially destructive to humanity. I don't think anarchy has been tested in many countries like communism has been tested and failed in every country it was tried in; In some parts of the world like Ireland, they've managed to live in a stateless region for a 1000 years before they were conquered by the British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Gaelic_Ireland_.28650-1650.29
and it was somewhat civilized, with people who owned property; In pre-columbia America, I know neighboring tribes would clash with each other if one perceived the their opponent as intruding upon their territory , but I don't think the death tolls were as high as during WW2; Iceland was another region where anarchy even formed their police force via the free market;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#Icelandic_Commonwealth_.28930_to_1262.29

 

[russ_watters]

Hey,don't tossed this ideology in the trashcan so quickly. I bet to the feudal serfs of Medieval Europe , political ideologies like a constitutional republic, property rights and individual liberty was a pipedream at best...

Well a republic would make more sense to a feudal person than anarcy: they already evolved passed anarchy! You're probably 10,000 years behind on this one!

You might want to read Hobbes' "Leviathan" for some in depth treatment of the problems of anarchy:

Chapter XIII is an exposition "Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery" and contains the famous quotation describing life in the state of war of every man against every man:

“ the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short ”

Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this state of nature: competition, diffidence and glory, The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. His first law of nature is that that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. In the state of nature, every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book )

Like most of the commodities we buy food, shoes, cars, video games , the free-market will give you the option of choosing a police force who will provide the best services for your protection;prices would be decided by the market...

You're really not thinking this through. All of those things are complicated. It requires an organized society to create a car or a video game. If there are 100,000 people working for a car company, doing what the car company tells them to, being protected by the car company's police force and fire department, using the car company's currency to buy goods, guess what: that's a government!

And since the car company has a lot of money, they can also afford to hire the biggest "security force". So what's to stop them from taking over the video game company, the shoe company and the farms?

 

[russ_watters]

How do you know the death toll will rise 10x as much than during world war II? Do you have any statistics or even anecdotes to back up such claims?

Sure - how about the average life expectancy from the time when there was anarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Lifespan_variation_over_time

Consider the possibility that the primary difference between humans today and humans 10,000 years ago that enabled everything we know of about modern life is governent. Government is the enabler of all of our advancement. It is why we don't still live in caves and die by age 30.

I don't think anarchy has been tested in many countries like communism has been tested and failed in every country it was tried in...

Anarchy was the way people lived for tens of thousands of years.

In some parts of the world like Ireland, they've managed to live in a stateless region for a 1000 years before they were conquered by the British...

Note that they weren't entirely free from government. Note also that what probably kept them from being conquered by a more organized society was the English Channel.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm still trying to figure out what 1000 years Noblegas is talking about.

England conquered Ireland in 1603. This took almost a century; Henry VIII decided to conquer it in 1536. Between 1168 and 1536, Ireland was ruled by the Normans, although their conquest was never entirely complete. If it was "stateless", it was so only because the conquerors had not completely pacified the territory. From 400-1168, Ireland was, like much of Europe, divided into small kingdoms. Before 400 or so, there's very little written history of Ireland - most comes from commentary by others, like the Romans.

 

[noblegas]

I'm still trying to figure out what 1000 years Noblegas is talking about.

England conquered Ireland in 1603. This took almost a century; Henry VIII decided to conquer it in 1536. Between 1168 and 1536, Ireland was ruled by the Normans, although their conquest was never entirely complete. If it was "stateless", it was so only because the conquerors had not completely pacified the territory. From 400-1168, Ireland was, like much of Europe, divided into small kingdoms. Before 400 or so, there's very little written history of Ireland - most comes from commentary by others, like the Romans.

Yes; you are right; I was wrong; I misread the article; I thought gaelic ireland was purely an anarchial society; I must confessed that I did not really have a general understanding of ireland's history before I've created this thread and only access an article from wikipedia on ancient Ireland . But as you've stated . various kingdoms and tribes existed throughout ancient europe, and much of the ancient world,; I was only stating that a more centralized state will lead to more violence and destruction; Take the Roman empire for example, much of western europe, southern asia and northern africa was conquered by the romans through violence, but despite all its might it was never able to go beyond those conquered territories because it didn't have enough people to finance its regime; fast forward to the Britain in the 1600- 1800s , a nation-state ,not a city state like ancient rome and therefore is more centralized for it has more occupants who will finance Britain's empire; Unlike rome, who had colonies near its vicinity, Britain has colonies on both american continents, colonies in Africa ,Asia and Africa, colonies in Ireland; Violence obviously ensue before these regions became colonies of Britain; Conclusion; the more centralized a state is, the more potential it possesses to bring violence to far away lands and nearbylands;

 

[noblegas]

Sure - how about the average life expectancy from the time when there was anarchy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Lifespan_variation_over_time


Consider the possibility that the primary difference between humans today and humans 10,000 years ago that enabled everything we know of about modern life is governent. Government is the enabler of all of our advancement. It is why we don't still live in caves and die by age 30.
Anarchy was the way people lived for tens of thousands of years. Note that they weren't entirely free from government. Note also that what probably kept them from being conquered by a more organized society was the English Channel.

Life expectancy was low because we did not have any advancements in medicine, it has nothing to do with the types of government people have adopted; Life-expectancy was low in centralized societies too; And there aren't written accounts of the life expectancy of societies that did not have a written record history of their life expectancy so one cannot come to the conclusion that little to no governance of people equals low -life expectancy rates; From looking at recorded history, even as societies have transitioned from city-states to nation-states over the course of recorded history, it looks like the life expectancy rates pretty much remained stagnate up until the industial revolution; The industrial revolution was responsible for the improvement of the quality of life , not the accumulation of power; I suggest you read the Capitalist manifesto by andrew bernstein; He does a pretty good job of highlighting the life-expectancy rates of people before the pre-industrial revolution vs the life-expectancy rates of people after and during the inudstrial revolution;

 

[cristo]

Life expectancy was low because we did not have any advancements in medicine, it has nothing to do with the types of government people have adopted

But how would advancements in medicine have happened if there weren't a government. Where do you think the money comes from to support advancement in medicine (say)?

 

[noblegas]

You're really not thinking this through. All of those things are complicated. It requires an organized society to create a car or a video game. If there are 100,000 people working for a car company, doing what the car company tells them to, being protected by the car company's police force and fire department, using the car company's currency to buy goods, guess what: that's a government!

And since the car company has a lot of money, they can also afford to hire the biggest "security force". So what's to stop them from taking over the video game company, the shoe company and the farms?

Yes but nobody would be coerced into financing the car company just like we are now coerced into financing some nation's military; People could possibly have a myriad of choices in decided what car company they wished to do business with; I highly doubt the car company become as powerful as a nation to a degree where they are able just forced their customers to invade another territory to destroyed a rival car company; I will read that article by Levianthian but I suggest you also read an article by Murray Rothbard; He makes a good case for a stateless society; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

 

[Astronuc]

There seems to be a preponderance for humans to form groups (village, clan, tribe, nation, . . .), and there seems to be a tendency for some individuals to become leaders of those groups. And some of those leaders like to lead the group they control to assert control over other groups or at least take the possessions (land or resources) of the other groups.

Large scale war seemed to be an inevitability of the tendency to form larger groups combined with the apparent inherent violence for some portion of those groups.

 

[noblegas]

But how would advancements in medicine have happened if there weren't a government. Where do you think the money comes from to support advancement in medicine (say)?

Many advances were made in communications ,flight,spaceflight, transportation, innovations in electricity by private hands; innovations in hygiene and sanitation were also made by private hands;For example, at lambert pharmeceutical company, Joseph lambert created listerine; Chris and edward scott invented indoor plumbing;William colgate invented toothpaste; james gamble participated in the business of manufauturing soap; All of these innovations were done by private hand, not direction from some czar or some pope; This information can be found in Andrew bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto(Berstein, andrew, the capitalistic manifesto 2005 pp. 114-119)

 

[russ_watters]

Many advances were made in communications ,flight,spaceflight, transportation, innovations in electricity by private hands; innovations in hygiene and sanitation were also made by private hands;For example, at lambert pharmeceutical company, Joseph lambert created listerine; Chris and edward scott invented indoor plumbing;William colgate invented toothpaste; james gamble participated in the business of manufauturing soap; All of these innovations were done by private hand, not direction from some czar or some pope; This information can be found in Andrew bernstein book, the capitalist manifesto(Berstein, andrew, the capitalistic manifesto 2005 pp. 114-119)

Besides government money paying for most of those (you're flat wrong about most of them, btw*), advancements that do happen in the private sector are still only possible because of government.

*Communications - 90% government. The phone companies are government sponsored monopolies and cell phones are military/space technology.
Flight - invented by private inventors, but virtually all advancement of flight technology was government funded.
Spaceflight - duh.
Transportation - Rome's most lasting mark on history was her roads. Without roads, all other land transportation advances are useless.
Electricity - 90% government. The government sponsored monopolies built and control the electrical grid.
Sanitation/Hygeine - 98% government. The advances aren't what matters. What matters is that the government builds the swers and runs the fresh water. Sanitation is perhaps the most important advancement that enables modern society to exist.

I highly doubt the car company become as powerful as a nation to a degree where they are able just forced their customers to invade another territory to destroyed a rival car company...

Not their customers, their employees. Again, a car company that employs 100,000 people is a government. Whether they choose to invade and take over their neighbors (they would - that's what companies do) isn't really relevant to the fact that the car company is a government!

nobody would be coerced into financing the car company...

If the car company is the only government around, they most certainly can coerce you into financing them. You want electricity and water and police? You'll have to buy it from them. And, of course...you want a car...?

 

[russ_watters]

...I suggest you also read an article by Murray Rothbard; He makes a good case for a stateless society; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

 

[Integral]

If there were no central form of government, do you think wars liked we had in the 20th century would be prevented or not occur very often? The more I think about, the more it makes sense to me; Think about it. Most of the participants involved in those major wars like WW1 , WW2, and the Vietnam war were drawn into those conflicts because to some degree, their country's government forced them to participate in those wars , whether their participation was beneficial for the individual or not and/or directly inflicted them or not; The conflicts did not directly affect most of the soldiers participating in whatever war was going on; Therefore, unnecessary manslaughter occurred on a vast scale; Alternative scenario: If we were in anarchical society where people hired their own source of protection rather than rely on a centralized police force everybody had to rely on, I think most conflicts would be local and not global and therefore mass slaughter would not ensue ; For example if person A had a dispute with person B about a source of petroleum popping out of the ground in who's territory , the conflict would be only between person A and person B, not person C, D, E, and every other letter not directly involved;

Absolutely, for the reasons already expressed in this thread, without big government there would be no BIG wars. However, history shows that it would not be the end of war. War would, as was historically true, be between local tribes or villages. In some ways this would make war a fact of life everyday for everybody. Is that really what you want?

 

[noblegas]

Besides government money paying for most of those (you're flat wrong about most of them, btw*), advancements that do happen in the private sector are still only possible because of government.
*Communications - 90% government. The phone companies are government sponsored monopolies and cell phones are military/space technology.

If the government continued to have a complete monopoly over the phone industry, advances would not have been made in phone technology ; We've all still would of had black phones and would have still been asking an operator to connect us to another line; Its when the government loosing its grip on the phone industry , real innovations in phones begin to occur; If the government continue to loosing its grip on the phone industry, more innovations will continue to occur;

Flight - invented by private inventors, but virtually all advancement of flight technology was government funded."
Spaceflight - duh.

Just because the government is responsible for spawning the spaceflight industry , doesn't mean it it is the only sole entity that can make advances in space flight; If private individuals were allowed to create spacecraft for business purposes in a more lenient fashion than they can now and the government didn't have a monopoly in the spaceflight industry, I predict that many more significant advances would have been made in spaceflight at a faster rate the advances in spaceflight provided by the US government;. The US post office is the provider for most people in the US , but that doesn't mean there are alternative mail carriers could not exists , look at the service fedex provides; The US military is responsible for spawning the internet and the mainframe computer, but most of the advances made in those two respective fields like the idea that a computer could be use for personal use ,webcam, ethernet , laser printing,google,P2P technology ,came from the minds of private individuals and private companies; Transportation - Rome's most lasting mark on history was her roads. Without roads, all other land transportation advances are useless.
Electricity - 90% government. The government sponsored monopolies built and control the electrical grid.

Sanitation/Hygeine - 98% government. The advances aren't what matters. What matters is that the government builds the swers and runs the fresh water. Sanitation is perhaps the most important advancement that enables modern society to exist.

Listerine was not created by the government; Toothpaste was not created by the government; The inexpensive soap was not made by the government ; In addition, shampoo, toilet paper were not created by any government regime; I think its absurd to say advances in sanitation would not have been made had the government have not gotten involve; I liked to remind you that in the mid-1800's , capitalism was at its earlier stages and so of course advances in sanitation, hygeine and working condition would not be made right away; Those problems existed prior to the industrial revolution, when the government had full control over society and the economy. If it was the government and not capitalism that helped make advances in sanitation and hygeine , Then why weren't innovations made in such areas prior to the 1800's ? ; Why is pollution such a big problem in countries where the government has plays a larger role in its economy more so than countries with freer economies?
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/top_10_polluted.htm
Not their customers, their employees. Again, a car company that employs 100,000 people is a government. Whether they choose to invade and take over their neighbors (they would - that's what companies do) isn't really relevant to the fact that the car company is a government!

If the car company is the only government around, they most certainly can coerce you into financing them. You want electricity and water and police? You'll have to buy it from them. And, of course...you want a car...?

Again the car company can't theoretically be the only car company around if someone comes around who is better can offer cars cheaply and better quality made, people will flocked to that car company, just like Henry ford did in the late 1800's/early 1900's; No one would be forced to do business with that car company nor will that car company received any subsidies/loans from the government that give him economic advantages over his competitors; The US military would not be as powerful as it is now if it didn't contract out to private companies that manfactured airplanes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Corps.2C_August_2.2C_1909_to_April_6.2C_1917

 

[noblegas]

Absolutely, for the reasons already expressed in this thread, without big government there would be no BIG wars. However, history shows that it would not be the end of war. War would, as was historically true, be between local tribes or villages. In some ways this would make war a fact of life everyday for everybody. Is that really what you want?

I wasn't trying to imply in my OP that war would end nor was I trying to insinuate that we would live in a utopia society if anarchy was the dominant form of government; I said individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them ; In centralized states, We were involved in two world wars , even though the conflicts that precipitated those world wars did not involved most individuals participating in those two major wars; You think the people in the colonies of the British empire would have volunteered to fight for Britain in ww1 if Britain did not have the power to basically coerced the peoples of its colonies to participate in WW1?

 

[noblegas]

political crackpoterry", anarchism

Why do you think anarchy is 'political crockery' as you call it? It is just an a political ideology no different from other political ideologies , like laissez faire capitalism,libertarianism communism, and feminism.(yes feminism); Feminism was basically non-existent in most parts of the world ; what if someone said said'hey feminism is non-existent, best not exert any effort to make feminism a reality',women(at least in western societies) would not have been granted the same rights and privileges men were granted; People who support anarchy only want full sovereignty over their lives and not be forced to submit to the desired of a larger body like the state; People should not give up on an ideology so easily just because it has not worked well in one circumstance;

 

[cesiumfrog]

I think Russ's lapse was that instead of citing homicide rate (which is uniformly decreasing significantly through history and compared to primitive societies -- see Steven Pinker at http://ted.com" ) he used an indirect proxy (since part of the life expectancy really is due to sanitation, and the question of what caused that discovery isn't relevant to deciding governance systems for now that knowledge already exists).

The basic problem with anarchy is that someone has to judge what is fair. Disagreements will innocently arise when one person's assumed partner is romanced by someone else (is it the hippies or the puritans that decide whether a punishable crime has occured?), or when someone is blamed for a poorly-witnessed (possibly accidental) death, or when someone realizes that your appropriating vital organs would save their life (or prolong their health). If the person that could field the most enforcers is automatically going to win, then that person is now a feudal governor. (Even if you disagree with some laws, at least a priori compulsory consistent governance offers the stability for progress.)

 

[noblegas]

I'll have a look, but just fyi, no serious political scientist believes such things. If there can be such a thing as "political crackpoterry", anarchism is it. Anarchism is basically just naive daydreaming.

noam chomsky, isn't well respected? I read a poll a number of years ago that most political science professors vote democratic; So I expect that most political scientists will favor an ideology closer to socialism/statism; Besides, political science isn't a science like physics or biology; It doesn't apply the scientific method for their would be social laws and theories analogous to Einstein theory of general relativity and Newton Law of gravitation. What ideology will work for a society is mainly subjective, not objective;

 

[negitron]

There seems to be a preponderance for humans to form groups...

I rarely do this unless I find it particularly grating: the word you wanted here is propensity.

Sorry. Carry on.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I wasn't trying to imply in my OP that war would end nor was I trying to insinuate that we would live in a utopia society if anarchy was the dominant form of government; I said individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them

Agreed. They'd be too busy fighting for their daily survival to fight people from far off, in general. Maybe you'd get raiding parties going to different cities to loot, but not much more than that.

Of course it's not a large step from an organized raiding party to a feudal society, so that might spell the end of anarchy per se.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Noblegas, before using the Roman empire as an example of, to quote a movie, "the violence inherent in the system", you mighty want to look up "Pax Romana". In fact, you might want to contrast the Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd century with the period of anarchy in the 3rd.

And while Chomsky is a respected linguist, that doesn't make him a political scientist.

 

[Astronuc]

I rarely do this unless I find it particularly grating: the word you wanted here is propensity.

Sorry. Carry on.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the preponderance of social groups that developed throughout history, so it's actually more than just a natural inclination.

 

[Astronuc]

With respect to the OP, I just happen to be researching the history of Lancshire and Yorkshire as part of my research into my ancestry. I just started reading John Walton's Lancashire: A Social History, 1558 - 1939. He describes Lancanshire of the 1500's as the poorest of counties, with the other 4 northern neighbor not much better.

"The limited number of substantial gentry families was reflected in the paucity of Justices of the Peace - only 24 for the whole county in 1564, despite administrative problems - and in the prevailing tendency to intermarriage within a narrow cousinhood of leading families. Even this county élite had an unenviable reputation for violence, parochalism and sexual laxity. Disputes were still be settled by pitched battles between bands of armed retainers, probably to a greater extent than in the rest of England (excepting the northern borders and not including Wales), and a surviving tradition of child marriages, with property and terretorial considerations uppermost, not doubt help to encourage the proliferation of mistresses, concubines and [illigitemate] children . . . . " [p. 14]

Lanchashire was pretty anarchic. If you had something of value, someone was likely to take it. Whoever mustered the larger force was the likely winner in a dispute. This seems an inevitable situation - when one looks back 2000 years before that to the warring tribes/clans. Just look at the Picts (Caledonii) or Brigantes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigantes

Then along came the Vikings, Angles and Saxons, Normans, . . . . and the rest is violent history.

I also am reading Bernard Lewis's The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years. One sees there much the same behavior - a small groups dominates it's neighbor, and down the road, there is Greek, Roman, Persian, . . . . empires and inevitable large scale wars. Later on the people of the steppes and desert areas got into the fray. Of the people of the steppes, Lewis quotes Ammianus Marcellinus's observation that: "The inhabitants of all the districts are savage and warlike and take such pleasure in war and conflict, that one who loses his life in battle is regarded as happy beyond all others. For those who depart from this life by a natural death they assail with insults, as degenerate and cowardly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain - look at all the different tribes/peoples about 2000 years ago. Some groups just loved to fight, and if one happened to be in the way, one fought or fled, or died. If one fled, one more than likely would have fled into poverty.

 

[Phrak]

Thanks, Astronuc. That was informative, if not depressing. I've often wondered about this. We are ever so more polite snagging acorns from each other, today.

I wonder how well the history you've given translates across the globe and time to other tribal societies.

This-all begs the question; do people tend to organize no higher than tribes--extended family units, because they have the character to take by force, or do people take by force due to their tribal circumstances--or is it both?

The difference seems to revolve around the single ethic of property rights.

 

[Astronuc]

There is more to the chapter from which I took the quote. It goes on to talk about the role of the Church and Courts in resolving disputes as opposed to violence. It makes the comment that there was an increase in "lawyers" around the 1540's in Lancashire. It's a fascinating history.

Urban common rights, enclosure and the market: Clitheroe Town Moors, 1764–1802
http://www.bahs.org.uk/51n1a3.pdf

and

Rights of Cowling Freeholders
http://www.cowlingweb.co.uk/local_history/history/rights_of_cowling_freeholders_1927.asp


As for ". . . . individuals in a more decentralized society who are not directly involved in conflicts of neighbors far away would not have to be dragged into wars that don't concern them," most people didn't go to war, but rather it came to them. Just look at the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the Huns, then later the Mongols. The Huns actually put pressure on the Goths, Avars and Sarmatians, who pushed into the Roman Empire to get out of the way.


I strongly recommend Lewis's book on the Middle East. It describes the various drives about trade and economics, and politics and imperialism.

 

[arildno]

Anarchy is an UNSTABLE social state, in that any perturbation of it will propel the social state into something else:

It requires only one individual to wish to bully over others.

If they submit to him, anarchy is destroyed.


If they deliberate together, and agree that they must form a self-help group against outside aggressors, and that each of them must play their role in order for the collectivity to yield effective resistance, then anarchy is destroyed, too.

 

[noblegas]

Noblegas, before using the Roman empire as an example of, to quote a movie, "the violence inherent in the system", you mighty want to look up "Pax Romana". In fact, you might want to contrast the Roman Empire during the 1st and 2nd century with the period of anarchy in the 3rd.

And while Chomsky is a respected linguist, that doesn't make him a political scientist.

Just because one person did not formally study that subject he is given his opinions in, does not make him not an expert; Nietzsche was never formally trained in philosophy and he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time; In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated , but he could never truly accept quantum mechanics, as indicated by his famous "god does not play dice quote"

 

[arildno]

In addition, Einstein was a well respected physicist by the tie the basic principles of quantum mechanics were being formulated

Eeh?

Einstein was fully competent at the quantum mechanics of his day; ever heard of why Bose-Einstein condensates are called...Bose-EINSTEIN condensates?

What he did not agree with was the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, and wanted to develop a field theory more in line with classical thinking that could derive the results and predictions in QM. he failed at that.


To regard Chomsky as the Einstein within political science is a rather astounding claim on your part..

 

[TVP45]

The problem with anarchy is not to be found by looking at idealistic or intellectual anarchists but rather at the ordinary person in an anarchical society. We have some instances where people come fairly close to that, though at first it might not seem so. Consider general population in any maximum security prison. There is no government, no accepted religion, no set of external ethics, save the ultimate threat of deadly violence. In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

In such a setting, people are apt to do whatever serves their own survival, needs, or desires. If prisoner A has a box of candy bars, and prisoner B wants those, then it becomes a matter of which prisoner is physically stronger, or wilier, or deadlier. This, in fact, is unstable and leads prisoners to form self-governments (we call these gangs). These gangs look something like small states in that they create internal rules, rules for cooperating or negotiating with other "states", and punishment for those who transgress. The end result is that the only anarchy in prison is among those who are victimized by these gangs.

I quoted your post to disagree with "unstable", but I see now that we understand the situation the same way.

 

[eyebeam]

Anarchy is all fun and games until someone steals your bike.