Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[Al68]

You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.

The choice is between authoritarianism and anarchism (or something in between).

Sure, in the absence of state (or state-like) economic "authority", both voluntary socialism and capitalism would be possible, and both would exist. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, and neither does any libertarian or anarchist I've heard of.

"Voluntary socialism" exists in the U.S. and includes every U.S. citizen that chooses (volunteers) to participate.

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

As stated, I agree with the quote above. In practice however, state socialism includes everyone and excludes true capitalism at all but the smallest scales.

Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc. One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

 

[jambaugh]

...Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc.

Not "is" but rather democracy tends to choose capitalism mostly over socialism. Just because A is compromised to allow a little bit of B doesn't make A=B.

One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

But note the more freedom the more these "wealth concentrating" institutions exist. This fact should say something to the idealist who thinks them evil or unjust. If banks and corporations are exploiting the workers why do they exist and even thrive in a free society? Why do they emerge and profit if they are not providing beneficial services?
[I am asking this question mainly of the statest socialist and communists out there.]

Let me also add to the anecdotes of history the Israeli kibbutz, another miserable failure of socialistic ideals.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

I would qualify that there is no "legitimate" voluntary capitalism. I.e. it goes on but under the state's radar or at least their official radar. There is always barter and black markets (and graft to the local officials who look the other way).

 

[Galteeth]

As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.

Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.

There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).

Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".

Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence." This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale.
It is likely true that in such a small and competitive scale of government, justifications for the use of force will be extremely arbitrary, (such as "I feel like killing that person over there") but this is still a state imposing its will through coercion. Most people likely define some arbitrary cutoff point between "gangs with guns" and "states" although on close examination it is a matter of continuum. (For example, even the United States Government, which most would consider being the exemplar of a state in the opposite sense of warring gangs, does not follow its own fundamental "contract with the governed" from which it allegedly derives the right to exert force.)

 

[Al68]

The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state.

Of course, but the practice of claiming ownership of property was not invented or introduced by the state.

In society there are many people who will want to claim ownership and use property, and defend it. Maybe the state will help them defend it, maybe not. In an anarchist society, they will at least try to defend it themselves, or pay for private security.

Anarcho-socialists cannot just decide these people won't exist, they must decide whether or not to use force against them.

As far as "voluntary socialism", it seems to me that by definition, it would include only those who choose to "volunteer", which is fine by me, and I think such a thing has never had any real political opposition.

 

[jambaugh]

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale...

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

 

[Galteeth]

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

I agree with all of this, which is why I personally see anarchy as more of an ethical code then a political system/ideal. I don't believe the use of force is justified except in immediate self-defene. The result of everyone having this same ethical code would in my mind be anarchy. They don't and they won't, but that's irrelevant from my point of view. Sort of like how one can believe murder is immoral but sill recognize that other people wil go on murdering irrelevant of that initial person's moral beliefs.
I don't claim these views necessarily represent a majority or even a large portion of self-described anarchists, although some type of similar moral ideal is often an underlying motivator, if not fleshed out coherently.

 

[Galteeth]

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

 

[Galteeth]

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.

Also any challenge on a territorial claim until one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined until after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)

In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.

I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to achieve his aims.

From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The fact remains that if an anarchist community is founded on land claimed by a state, the community is in principle subject to the sovereign whether the sovereign chooses to enforce its authority or not. If the anarchist community challenges the authority of the sovereign, then it is in rebellion and an unstable situation exists until the situation is resolved. If the anarchist community is successful in establishing its independence it de facto obtains sovereignty over the land it uses and becomes a state whether it wants to or not.

For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted. Under such circumstances it would effectively become a state with its own rules of conduct (if you don't want to use the term "laws").

The idea of a state is a legal concept. It includes the idea of a defined territory with recognized boundaries. The CSA never fully established its legality as a state although it was organized as one. Its claim to its territory was immediately challenged by the USA and de facto control over it's claimed territory was limited by the shifting lines of battle. Stability was restored when the USA won and the CSA disappeared. No other power ever recognized the CSA.

 

[WhoWee]

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Are you describing Pirates?

 

[Galteeth]

Are you describing Pirates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_utopia



I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Galteeth]

The most famous "anarchist" pirates (who probably never existed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia

 

[WhoWee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_utopia



I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.

Interesting link, not even Pirates could exist for long (as true Anarchists) without assembling a type of Government - to form and recognize treaties.

 

[jambaugh]

Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. ... one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

The only honest consistent set of values I could come up with are...
I value most the prosperity and freedom of myself and my ken and friends prioritized by distance from me but including eventually all persons.

I worked out a nice classification of ethical attitudes. I am an ambitious mutualist in that I will be altruistic when it is at no or very little cost to me and otherwise seek my own benefit. Essentially Ayn Rand's rational self interest (though not her definition of altruism which she defined as requiring sacrifice.)

I believe too anarchistic a system will expose me too often to aggression from others. Likewise a monarchy with me at the top though that also would cost me too much time and effort administering the responsibilities that gives me over others.

I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Are you describing Pirates?

If you distinguish between privateers and pirates, then a pirate ship or pirate organization could be considered an anarchist entity since they are stateless and self-governing. Purists might want to say they are not anarchist because, for the most part, they are (or at least were) authoritarian. However, if I remember my history correctly, Blackbeard was careful to share the booty equitably with the crew. The Somali pirates are land based but might be considered anarchists because they live in a non-functional state. Of course, seafaring societies need not be pirates. They could earn income from fishing or trafficking in legal (or illegal) commerce.

http://talkradionews.com/2009/04/analysis-the-“poverty-of-leadership”-in-somalia/

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).

That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).

 

[Jasongreat]

That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).

IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.

The USA had a huge surge in immigration after the Civil War, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe. However, jambaugh was talking about our personal prosperity. There was overt discrimination against these people (not mention the traditional "discriminatees"; African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, etc) in terms of getting into the best universities and rising to the higher jobs in business or in government. It's fair to say the upper classes were and are still dominated by WASPs and NW European surnames. Harvard had a quota for Jews as did other universities. This situation didn't dramatically change after 1933 either. I chose that date primarily as the end of laissez faire economics (which had been declining since 1861 but lasted somewhat through the 1920s). Otherwise, the situation is changing only very slowly. Currently, the USA has a president with a Kenyan surname, but to date, only one Catholic, no Jews, and no Latin surnames. In fact every US President other than Obama has been a WASP except Van Buren (Dutch),the two Roosevelts (Dutch), Kennedy (Irish Catholic), Hoover (German) and Eisenhower(German). Dutch, German and "Scotch-Irish" surnames are more or less "honorary" WASPs if they're Protestant.

This is off topic except to say that anarchist communities are IMHO even more likely to have restrictive membership (so there is a common set of agreed upon customs and beliefs reducing the need for coercion) than pluralistic states like the USA.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html

 

[Al68]

For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted.

Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.

Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?

Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.

Maybe there's safety in numbers?

 

[Galteeth]

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?




Maybe there's safety in numbers?

Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.

 

[Al68]

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?

I was only pointing out how communities recognize plural marriages in the U.S., I don't advocate them. Like I said, I think one wife is too many.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.

It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.

EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?

 

[Galteeth]

It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.

EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?

The first two questions don't make much sense in the context of anarchism as I have been defining it.

For the rest:
3. NO.
4. Conventions might be enforced by social pressure and the neccessity to co-operate, but the whole point is that no individual or individuals have to accept this and can try to go it alone if they want.
5. Explained.
6. No

These are only the answers for the anarchism I have been talking about. Qualifying a different anarchist philosophy would result in different answers.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.

Also any challenge on a territorial claim until one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined until after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)

In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.

I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to achieve his aims.

From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.

The word "anarchy" literally means 'no state' or 'no sovereign'. As far what a state is, the modern definition is a legal one involving the idea of 'full sovereignty' over a territory with defined boundaries.

Historians might not apply such a definition to past societies. For example, was the North American Iroquois Confederation a state? It was a federation of six tribes living in loosely defined areas, but there were no sharp boundaries. However, they were not migratory. They lived in villages and did some garden type farming. In general most ancient states did not have sharp boundaries as far as I know.

If you're using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.

Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.

True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.

http://www.johnzerzan.net/

 

[Galteeth]

If your using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.

Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.

True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.

http://www.johnzerzan.net/

Well, I agree with much of what you said. I don't really see any of the reasons your communes failed as being unexpected or even necessarily bad. Since I'm really talking about ethics here, I don't see the need for isolation of the society. I recognize the advantages that an advanced division of labor brings.


Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.

 

[Al68]

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.

How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.

And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.

 

[Galteeth]

Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.

How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.

And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.

While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.

Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?

 

[Al68]

While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.

Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?

No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.

And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.

 

[Galteeth]

No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.

And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.

The few bad apples will still have consequences, i.e., social condemnation, refusal of co-operation, etc. It really does seem like its a systemic risk.

What are you comparing America to in this regards?

 

[Galteeth]

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.

Well if a state was based purely on voluntary co-operation then I don't have a problem with it, and I don't think most anarchists would either.