What is Anarchy?

[dusken]

First of all, why do you assume this is about winning support? This is not about winning anyone to any position, it is about stimulating thought and confronting a conventional worldview that you "need" the State. In the article the author draws examples of why people believe they need a State, and holds it up against the State is eternal aggressor. Indeed, I'm sure you all here believe that every company in the free market system needs to be regulated under the State so as to not have bad things happen. Yet, mind you, this is the same State that is responsible for many bads things such as deaths of millions. The author only tries to show the fallacy in this thinking, the thinking being that, the same State that creates wars, acts of coercion, conscription, taxation and genocide, is the same entity to which people look for protection to make sure to not have bad things happen. That is in essence what is behind all government regulation. That is not law and justice, it is simply regulation by the State, creating 10,000 commandments to punish people and regulate peoples' lives even before a crime or an act of injustice has been committed.

Why is it about winning support? Because publishing an article to show that some guy you met in a coffee shop is wrong is otherwise pointless.

Yes, and I see the fallacy of the arguments he addressed. But "so bad things won't happen" is only one possible argument. It can also boil down to principle, which cannot be argued. Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. I just have nothing to take away from this article because he has not given me anything. There is nothing to think about because he only stated what would be obvious to many and took no risks by making assertions. My thoughts cannot be provoked if an assertion was not made.

[Anonymouse]

Why is it about winning support? Because publishing an article to show that some guy you met in a coffee shop is wrong is otherwise pointless.

Well, contrary to your view of an endless conflict between converts and outsiders, there is no need to win support. Perhaps he is, perhaps he is not, we don't know, but we can try playing psychic. He's only pointing out the obvious fallacy in what most people use to justify the regulation of the State, and that is perhaps the most important reason. What possible reason based on "principle" do you propose? Essentially it boils down to aggression versus nonaggression, with the State representing aggression.

[dusken]

Pointing out the obvious is masturbation. I am sure he had a great time.

A matter of principle: If a person feels more comfortable with the general predictability of government, you cannot argue it, especially since there has been no true manifestation of anarchy to such a degree that one can point out the possible misconceptions.

There is also the idea that I had put forth before, which is that government is a natural consequence of human nature.

I am not going to argue either of these points because it is unnecessary. I only mentioned them to show that he focused on specific representations of one possible arguement and proposed no alternative viewpoint in depth. Again, there is nothing to take away from this article. If it was not his intention to "give" in that respect, that is fine. But he cannot also expect to gain the respect of thinking individuals. Now, you may want to say I am just assuming that he wants to gain respect from this article. My response to that would be (1) that I never said he expected to but that he should not, and (2) expressing an opinion about something or showing an intellectual breakdown of something is usually motivated by the gaining of some sort of notoriety.

[Anonymouse]

Pointing out the obvious is masturbation. I am sure he had a great time.

A matter of principle: If a person feels more comfortable with the general predictability of government, you cannot argue it, especially since there has been no true manifestation of anarchy to such a degree that one can point out the possible misconceptions.

Did you not read the article I linked? It is a trivial matter that there has never been "anarchy" or there never was "anarchy" in the literal sense of the word. However, our actions with our neighbors are anarchic, nation-states in the world act anarchically, the marketplace is anarchic, so anarchy is possible. This is similar to the "it is impractical" or "it can't work" bromide. The article brought up a good point. We believe murder is wrong and should not exist, that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does that mean we shouldn't try to lessen it.

Since a State is an aggression and employs coercion, then that means people who abide by it also agree with aggression. Since a criminal doesn't justify his behavior, why should the State? In fact, they do not, no one ever justifies aggression against innocents. Unless people who support it can show that it is somehow okay and justifed, then they would have a case.

There is also the idea that I had put forth before, which is that government is a natural consequence of human nature.

I have already explained this that the term "government" is misleading. That term can apply to individuals since it can be argued that an individual itself is a government. A family surely is a form of government. When I use "government" I often mean the "State" or the "Government". What I am specifically referring to is the State, and yes the State did not exist under feudalism, nor for example during the "Old West".

[dusken]

Did you not read the article I linked? It is a trivial matter that there has never been "anarchy" or there never was "anarchy" in the literal sense of the word. However, our actions with our neighbors are anarchic, nation-states in the world act anarchically, the marketplace is anarchic, so anarchy is possible. This is similar to the "it is impractical" or "it can't work" bromide.

You are going off on a tangent. What you are doing here is what I expected the article to do. I said I did not want to argue the points. I mentioned them because he did not. Why is it that you still think I was asserting an opinion on anarchy?

By the way, you are biting yourself in the ass because you are nearing the argument that government is anarchic, which negates the purpose of supporting anarchy as opposed to government. Either you say that we are in a state of anarchy or you argue state/anarchy within the confines of the country.

The article brought up a good point. We believe murder is wrong and should not exist, that doesn't mean it will happen, nor does that mean we shouldn't try to lessen it.

Since a State is an aggression and employs coercion, then that means people who abide by it also agree with aggression. Since a criminal doesn't justify his behavior, why should the State? In fact, they do not, no one ever justifies aggression against innocents. Unless people who support it can show that it is somehow okay and justifed, then they would have a case.

First, innocence is relative. Second, believing murder is wrong is not universally true; it is often conditional and it will always be that way regardless of government or anarchy. Anarchy will just, theoretically, make the conditions relative to the individual.

I have already explained this that the term "government" is misleading. That term can apply to individuals since it can be argued that an individual itself is a government. A family surely is a form of government. When I use "government" I often mean the "State" or the "Government". What I am specifically referring to is the State, and yes the State did not exist under feudalism, nor for example during the "Old West".

You keep saying this but you fail to see that the formation of government, as I suggest it, is a process that begins with the most basic manifestations of government. If you feel that is a family, so be it. But when I said "government is a natural consequence of human nature" I did not suggest it would occur over night. It will build up from what would now be considered microcosmic.


See what you did? You dragged me off on your tangent.

[Anonymouse]

You are going off on a tangent. What you are doing here is what I expected the article to do. I said I did not want to argue the points. I mentioned them because he did not. Why is it that you still think I was asserting an opinion on anarchy?

By the way, you are biting yourself in the ass because you are nearing the argument that government is anarchic, which negates the purpose of supporting anarchy as opposed to government. Either you say that we are in a state of anarchy or you argue state/anarchy within the confines of the country.

I was aiming to establish a relationship between entities such as nations dealing with each other, no different than you dealing with your neighbors. These are all anarchic. A State in itself is regulatory, or socialistic. It is imperative that you understand what is meant by "anarchy", the absence of a State or central authority. There is no "world government" that is why Nation-States dealing with each other are anarchic.

First, innocence is relative. Second, believing murder is wrong is not universally true; it is often conditional and it will always be that way regardless of government or anarchy. Anarchy will just, theoretically, make the conditions relative to the individual.

My example on murder was hypothetical, it was to aim to compare to the view of anarchy. That we believe there shouldn't be murder, doesn't mean murder doesn't exist, but we shouldn't try not to lessen it. That we believe the State shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't. It does, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lessen it. The main thrust was the aggression axiom, that is not only in the form of murder. This whole idea of relativism is misleading. If everyone believed murder was right, then we would be murdering each other at each others throats and civilization would end. That murder is wrong, is why less people do it, and why people cooperate, but this part of human nature is rarely ever mentioned. There are correct ideas and incorrect ideas, and how we know which one is correct is because it works. Murder doesn't work, that is why it is wrong ( please don't attempt to state that since individual A wanted to murder individual B, it is right because it got "rid" of "his problem", that is what not I'm arguing for ). Aggression on innocents is not justified, whether it be murder, taxation, coercion, theft, etc. By your logic, the Turks were justified in whatever they did to Armenians.

You keep saying this but you fail to see that the formation of government, as I suggest it, is a process that begins with the most basic manifestations of government. If you feel that is a family, so be it. But when I said "government is a natural consequence of human nature" I did not suggest it would occur over night. It will build up from what would now be considered microcosmic.

This is irrelevant to the discussion for it is nothing but a non-issue. We are not concerned with the supposed transition of humans from hunter-gatherers, to which then it is alleged that "government" formed. Clearly my intention when I use the word "Government" is synonymous with "State", interchangeable. Obviously a family is a form of government which I support, contrary to the "State" under a "democracy", in which we are supposed to all believe we are a big "family" and we really run the show. Were you consulted by your selfless public servants before the war on Iraq?

See what you did? You dragged me off on your tangent.

No, sir, you did that, since I subscribe to free will, and not the deterministic worldview.

[dusken]

I was aiming to establish a relationship between entities such as nations dealing with each other, no different than you dealing with your neighbors. These are all anarchic. A State in itself is regulatory, or socialistic. It is imperative that you understand what is meant by "anarchy", the absence of a State or central authority. There is no "world government" that is why Nation-States dealing with each other are anarchic.

I understand what anarchic means, thank you very much. I feel in order for you support a lack of a state governing people you need to address issues within the state. The fact that there is no world government is not supportive of the possibility of teh lack of a state. Anyway, world politics is actually very supportive of my view of government being a logical consequence of human nature. There is more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes.

My example on murder was hypothetical, it was to aim to compare to the view of anarchy. That we believe there shouldn't be murder, doesn't mean murder doesn't exist, but we shouldn't try not to lessen it. That we believe the State shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that it doesn't. It does, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lessen it. The main thrust was the aggression axiom, that is not only in the form of murder. This whole idea of relativism is misleading. If everyone believed murder was right, then we would be murdering each other at each others throats and civilization would end. That murder is wrong, is why less people do it, and why people cooperate, but this part of human nature is rarely ever mentioned. There are correct ideas and incorrect ideas, and how we know which one is correct is because it works. Murder doesn't work, that is why it is wrong ( please don't attempt to state that since individual A wanted to murder individual B, it is right because it got "rid" of "his problem", that is what not I'm arguing for ). Aggression on innocents is not justified, whether it be murder, taxation, coercion, theft, etc. By your logic, the Turks were justified in whatever they did to Armenians.

It was not my logic. You misunderstand me. The idea was that you will have murder one way or another and you will always have people to oppose it.

However, since you were using murder as an analogy, we will look at it in that light. Via your analogy of murder, if you accept the fact that aggression can only be lessened and not completely eradicated, then it should apply just that way to your idea of state: state can be lessened but not eradicated and if a state of any size exists, it is not anarchy. Did I get my definition of anarchy correct, teacher?

This is irrelevant to the discussion for it is nothing but a non-issue. We are not concerned with the supposed transition of humans from hunter-gatherers, to which then it is alleged that "government" formed. Clearly my intention when I use the word "Government" is synonymous with "State", interchangeable. Obviously a family is a form of government which I support, contrary to the "State" under a "democracy", in which we are supposed to all believe we are a big "family" and we really run the show. Were you consulted by your selfless public servants before the war on Iraq?

Yes, we are concerned with it. You are concerned with it. It is a view point that anarchy cannot exist for more than a fleeting moment. It is a view point expressing that human nature will build government all over again. Regardless of the amount of time. That, even though it may not immediately form what you consider states, eventually it will. You keep arguing as if I am saying that a family is a state. I am not. But I am saying that such groups will grow to form what you now consider a state.


And you have yet to understand that this is tangential to my response to the article you posted.

[Anonymouse]

I understand what anarchic means, thank you very much. I feel in order for you support a lack of a state governing people you need to address issues within the state. The fact that there is no world government is not supportive of the possibility of teh lack of a state. Anyway, world politics is actually very supportive of my view of government being a logical consequence of human nature. There is more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes.

You are misconstruing examples. That anarchy is possible is exactly rooted in those analogies I gave. The marketplace is subject to anarchy. Your relation with neighbors is subject to anarchy. Nation-States are subject to anarchy. The fact that there is no world government is in fact supportive of anarchy, because, DUH, there is no world government. I would have to suspend my logic to try to comprehend that in terms of it meaning something other than what it means. That there is "more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes", is misleading. One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.

However, since you were using murder as an analogy, we will look at it in that light. Via your analogy of murder, if you accept the fact that aggression can only be lessened and not completely eradicated, then it should apply just that way to your idea of state: state can be lessened but not eradicated and if a state of any size exists, it is not anarchy. Did I get my definition of anarchy correct, teacher?

Like the author of the article I linked to, I don't believe that we will have "anarchy" ( in the sense of not having the State ) anytime soon at least, not in my lifetime. Does that mean I am something other than an anarchist? In his words:

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

And he goes on to state that (b) is obviously false, and therefore we are left with (a).

From Websters Univeversal Unabridged Dictionary: Anarchism: [from anarch, n. (Greek. anarchos, without head or chief.)] n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is uneccessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. anarchy; confusion; lawlessness.

So basically it is private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, at least that is what adult means. It is why rulers fear this word because it means they would go out of business. And throughout the centuries they are the ones that have commited wars and genocides and caused lawlessness as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the concept a bad name, to the point where anarchy and self rule means lawlessness. Of course anyone familiar knows it means to rule thyself.

Yes, we are concerned with it. You are concerned with it. It is a view point that anarchy cannot exist for more than a fleeting moment. It is a view point expressing that human nature will build government all over again. Regardless of the amount of time. That, even though it may not immediately form what you consider states, eventually it will. You keep arguing as if I am saying that a family is a state. I am not. But I am saying that such groups will grow to form what you now consider a state.

You are, yet again, misunderstanding this concept. Do not try to understand it in terms of "it can exist" or "it can't exist" or "it can work" or "it can't work". That is a fallacious way of understanding it. I refer you to read the initial article on the front of the thread, and the following one.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=1662&page=5&pp=15

And you have yet to understand that this is tangential to my response to the article you posted.[/QUOTE]

[dusken]

You are misconstruing examples. That anarchy is possible is exactly rooted in those analogies I gave. The marketplace is subject to anarchy. Your relation with neighbors is subject to anarchy. Nation-States are subject to anarchy. The fact that there is no world government is in fact supportive of anarchy, because, DUH, there is no world government. I would have to suspend my logic to try to comprehend that in terms of it meaning something other than what it means. That there is "more and more worldwide regulation occuring in the form of treaties and coalitions and multinational agencies as time passes", is misleading. One can argue the opposite that the world has more violent hot spots now than ever before, and the world stands closer to destruction than ever before with a rogue state such as America being the sole superpower.

You are misusing "anarchy." First you tell me it is limited to the idea of a state and that I was "misunderstanding" the idea of a state by allegedly applying the term to other things via analogy. Now you say that you can make the analogy to issues not related to state in order to support the lack thereof. Since my relationship with another human being is anarchic and everything is a culmination of individual anarchies, we are then in a constant state of anarchy regardless of whether a cross-section of that anarchy is called a government.

Hot spots? Hot spots are not on the same level of things like NATO, the United Nations, the ABM treaty, Hague, Geneva, BWC, or any of the various human rights and international trade treaties. It can be argued that America being so influential is yet another foreshadowing of international conformity. The way I would look at this is that it is in the middle of may state-creating timeline.

Like the author of the article I linked to, I don't believe that we will have "anarchy" ( in the sense of not having the State ) anytime soon at least, not in my lifetime. Does that mean I am something other than an anarchist? In his words:

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

And he goes on to state that (b) is obviously false, and therefore we are left with (a).

From Websters Univeversal Unabridged Dictionary: Anarchism: [from anarch, n. (Greek. anarchos, without head or chief.)] n. 1. the theory that formal government of any kind is uneccessary and wrong in principle; the doctrine and practice of anarchists. 2. anarchy; confusion; lawlessness.

So basically it is private rule. Formal government is uneccessary. That is, we rule ourselves. Each and every one of us, as adults, at least that is what adult means. It is why rulers fear this word because it means they would go out of business. And throughout the centuries they are the ones that have commited wars and genocides and caused lawlessness as in Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the concept a bad name, to the point where anarchy and self rule means lawlessness. Of course anyone familiar knows it means to rule thyself.

"Formal governmnet in unnecessary." All of your argument is based on the idealistic moral principle and there has been no discussion of necessity. The reason there has not is because it cannot be judged that way. If human nature creates it, there is necessity.

You are, yet again, misunderstanding this concept. Do not try to understand it in terms of "it can exist" or "it can't exist" or "it can work" or "it can't work". That is a fallacious way of understanding it. I refer you to read the initial article on the front of the thread, and the following one.

This has nothing to do with fallacy. This is no better than Marxism where everyone is miraculously happy about their predetermined place in society and happy about their lack of possessions and growth. They are both ideals that defeat human nature. And as ideals, they do not deserve to be put into words.

Supporting what cannot exist seems illogical to me. It is a snake eating its own tail.

[Anonymouse]

You are misusing "anarchy." First you tell me it is limited to the idea of a state and that I was "misunderstanding" the idea of a state by allegedly applying the term to other things via analogy. Now you say that you can make the analogy to issues not related to state in order to support the lack thereof. Since my relationship with another human being is anarchic and everything is a culmination of individual anarchies, we are then in a constant state of anarchy regardless of whether a cross-section of that anarchy is called a government.

You must understand that anarchy as a possibility is different than the concept as a whole coming to be as a probability. You also have to understand the difference between "anarchic" and "anarchism". That some things are anarchic does not mean there is anarchism, just like that most "Western Democracies" are socialistic ( in that they interfere in the market and impose regulations ) does not meant they would be classed under "Socialism". But as you point out, it is that cross section of society, the State, that is able to mobilize our fears into mass mindedness, ultimately what is responsible for world wars and genocides. This is not to say there is no violence, but compare the violence under feudal Europe with the absence of the State, or the violence in the Old West, with that of the 20th century when political systems reached their heights.

You see that is the problem, the State is an unnatural institution that has come to represent something that is attempting to bring order out of chaos and it never works, and hence why all states move toward disorder, toward chaos. States try to impose their decisions via coercion on its individuals within its territory since States are a monopoly of power within a given territory. The States rigid structure and regulations do not permit the natural order to continue instead imposing an artificial order. F.A. Hayek, which I'm sure you've never heard of, in his The Road to Serfdom offered a chilling critique of the modern State and all centrally controlled economies. He argued that no government bureaucrat could ever effectively make decisions for other people because it is impossible to process all of the information that goes into other people's decision making, tastes, preferences, experiences. Only the free market, which allows for the greatest flow of information that humans have thus far devised, can even begin to approach the levels of efficiency that a complex economy requires to function smoothly. We can only expect unsatisfactory results when we try make decisions for others, even when acting with their best interests at heart, hence regulations have to go. There will always be those among us, people who wish to manipulate our lives (always, we are assured, for our benefit rather than for the joy they take in the exercise), but the results are seldom salutary and never what the manipulators intended, and Ludwig von Mises would call this result "unintended consequences". Now if you support the "live and let live" dogma ( and I'm not saying you do ), you cannot truly stand for that principle if you support the State. It would be contradictory.

Hot spots? Hot spots are not on the same level of things like NATO, the United Nations, the ABM treaty, Hague, Geneva, BWC, or any of the various human rights and international trade treaties. It can be argued that America being so influential is yet another foreshadowing of international conformity. The way I would look at this is that it is in the middle of may state-creating timeline.

Well, that sure is a fine way of putting it. What is NATO but an alliance of big bullies, akin to the mafia, that bully around others who do not want to partake in the feast? That is what happened in Yugoslavia. That Iraq wouldn't join the Anglo-American-Israeli establishment is another reason why it had to experience the benefits of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And what is the purpose of these illusory ABM treaties or Geneva when you have the example right under your nose of two States, Israel and the United States, which willfully violate them? I don't want to come off as insulting, but if anyone believes that the U.N. or Geneva, or NATO are designed to promote "peace", they are more gullible than a baby believing his parents that he will get a chocolate toy car the size of a truck. Remember who influenced and designed these political institutions and for what purpose. These formal intitiation rites are merely for public relations purposes, to give the credo of Statism and aura of humanity and justness, when in reality they are the worst scum, criminals, murderers, thieves, in suits.

"Formal governmnet in unnecessary." All of your argument is based on the idealistic moral principle and there has been no discussion of necessity. The reason there has not is because it cannot be judged that way. If human nature creates it, there is necessity.

You know, by now I would expect you to already know that what I am espousing is not "idealism". I have repeatedly answered this obvious absurdity, yet you either chose not absorb it, or you are merely throwing that statement to sort of smear my view as "utopian" ergo, no need to pay attention to it, and then stamping with an ambiguoous answer that it was "human nature", a nice answer that effectively saves ourselve from having to discuss it in the first place. "It's human nature, so lets not even worry about it, lets just let it be". The State did not always exist, nor did it exist in feudal Europe or the Old West, yet these societies got along fine. You speak of "human nature creating it" as if everyone sort of got together and expressed admiration and cooperation for creating it. Do not forget that States are created by violence and imposed by violence and exist because we suspend our ability to differentiate and give ourselves to the State. They are never created peacefully. And why do you take on an ominous view of human nature as if it's something bad? You apparently equate "human nature" with badness, as if, humans, left to themselves, cannot be, and ignoring what I said initially about cooperation and if humans would truly be at each others throats then civilization would end, and the fact that in Stateless societies that did not happen, shows humans can get by without a State.

This has nothing to do with fallacy. This is no better than Marxism where everyone is miraculously happy about their predetermined place in society and happy about their lack of possessions and growth. They are both ideals that defeat human nature. And as ideals, they do not deserve to be put into words.

This is not Marxism, nor is it about ideals. This sort of tautological responses save ourselves of having to question our own prisms of thought. Did you see me say everyone will be happy? Did you see me say there will be equality? Did you see me say there will be no violence? This is not about an idealism, this is an ethical view, and I'm afraid I agree with the author, no wonder utilitarians, or others cannot comprehend it. Essentially you believe individuals themselves are dangerous and society will be in "chaos", yet you believe that these same individuals will be "selfless public servants" if cloaked with the mantle of the State. The "human nature" is a straw man, and I will avoid it. What is a natural form of government for example is the family.

Supporting what cannot exist seems illogical to me. It is a snake eating its own tail.

I'm afraid this does not make sense. Perhaps you can clarify.