Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.
Finish the statement: “Anarchy is…” with your own beliefs.
Anarchy is a system of social order with the greatest amount of competition possible in all areas of society while still preventing widespread bloodshed and chaos. Anarchy is the ultimate free market. Anarchy is a system under which a minimal property norm is agreed upon at the margins in which every individual within society, to the greatest extent possible, will be able to pursue their value preferences without interference, should these values be feeding the poor, accumulating wealth, building parks, worshipping god, enjoying their lives, or creating artwork. Anarchy is a system in which force is only used in order to defend property rights the validity of which cannot be challenged by a reasonable individual and a handful of exceptional circumstances. Anarchy is ultimate competition, anarchy is ultimate cooperation, anarchy is ultimate freedom.
I like that last part. Does your definition of anarchy include laws that certain communities decided upon, or do you mean anarchy as in simply ‘without a leader’?
@Travlyr, you’ve contradicted yourself. A ruler is one who is strong, ruling over the weak. Anarchy cannot be both rulerless and the strong controlling the weak. Anarchy is “without a ruler” not “without a leader”. Very big difference.
Anarchy is an extreme position just as communism is. A doomed utopia which would meet the same ends communism did. However, anarchists & libertarians remind us sometimes how wrong things are in society.
“Anarchy is an extreme position just as communism is. A doomed utopia which would meet the same ends communism did. However, anarchists & libertarians remind us sometimes how wrong things are in society.”
Thanks for the clear explanation and refutation of anarchism based upon totally reasonable premises
“Does your definition of anarchy include laws that certain communities decided upon, or do you mean anarchy as in simply ‘without a leader’?”
Depends on whether or not this is directly equated in the property norm, if you gave me a precise example I could better answer your question. But actually I disagree with the “without a leader” part per se because I have no problem with leaders, I have problem with conquerors and coercive rulers, I am a fairly firm believer in a type of Nietzchian natural elites, but following these individuals must be voluntary and subject directly to competitive forces. In this way I guess one could consider me something other than an anarchist but then all anarchists must not believe in a parental based family unit or the legitimacy of a group of individuals pronouncing a leader.
@Grayson
True, but in the context its obvious the OP wants a definition of a functional anarchic ideology. I don’t see the point of having the first dozen posts say that anarchy is either “without rulers” or “chaos” and then have the OP have to come back and restate what he wants from us.
“Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force, but the application of force to real invaders.” (Benjamin Tucker)
Anarchy is the system in which no man owns another, but owns only himself.
Anarchy from Etymology: 1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia “lack of a leader,” noun of state from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” + arkhos “leader”.
Rulerless meaning no designated ruler or leader. Everyone for themselves.
@Travlyr, where do you get that arkhos is leader? It’s not, it’s ruler. (It’s leader insofar as a ruler leads, but should not imply that all leaders rule.) And as I stated, it’s an important distinction. See here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archon
Anarchy to me is the rule of law based upon the framework of mutual contract (or trust) and the concept of social norms which govern society. Basically, anarchy (if it is to exist) must have its bearing in the culture of the society. The laws that would exist would be cutomary law based upon the voluntary submission to these rules and norms by the individuals in society. While this may seem like a silly dream, there is validity in its application (of course there are several problems with primarily being governed by costumary law, of which is enforcement and potential for abuse among the enforcers within society).
Anarchy can only exist in a setting of pure voluntary associations. Some say that anarchy will have no rulers and directly it won’t. However, anarchy can develop into a rule by an overpowering elite much like any system of governance. I’m not saying that anarchy is impossible, I am just saying their is no safegaurds against tyrranny that are absolutely certain.
Before people walk away believing this is what I think, I am right now in the process of reexamination of all my beliefs and ideas. This is all I could come up with in the little time I had to think about anarchy and read up on it.
Also, here is another point of thought. Is anarcho capitalism really anarchy or a huge collection of little archies (or rulerships)? After all, the system of society proposed by anarcho capitalists does not take away the business rights to defend themselves (however, maybe someone could let me know if they can use violent coercion to enforce contractual agreements). With the ability to defend also comes the ability to attack. However, businesses won’t choose to attack since that may cut into their profits but if attacking will be simple and easy without fear of repromanding, then the business may decide to engage in such behaivior. There are some claims to the use of voluntary security groups and courts but I see some flaws with them too. They may only decide to accept cases that will bring them higher profits and thus may ignore the person who is attacked in favor of defending someone else do to limited resources. This maybe an actual case where a government with the power to use force may be of use. Not saying they should have a monopoly on the use of force (which for a long time in the US it did not have) but that the laws should probably at the very least be uniform and a force of the government or individuals should be able to defend it with courts whose duty it is to rule on such cases(basically a critique of the subjectivity of customary law). Not saying that the liberal ideal will be successful, but just saying that the uncertainty of anarchy and liberalism leaves too many questions open for discussion for me to provide any affirmative for either.
Of course I would like to remind any naysayers to anarcho capitalism, that customary law is the primary form of governence in society anyway. Most laws that are deemed unenforcable are those which society chooses not to follow (like the drug wars). Also the problem with laws is the potential for factional abuse and dependency on those laws (socialism is the primary example of this case althought there are smaller cases like an unjust law being followed merely because it is the law). However, they do provide a uniform understanding of the rules of society, which without would lead to a form of arbitrary chaos. Also, there is a possiblity for syndicalism within anarcho capitalism which is prevelent when someone owns vasts quantities of property and thus is the prime writer of the laws.
Well there you have it. I hope that my explanation will at least spur on a little thinking. If it seems confusing keep in mind that I just confused myself so… enjoy
@Travlyr, you can persist in your err, as I have explained it to you, or correct yourself. Anarchy, as employed by anarchy-theorists, mean “without a ruler”, not “without a leader”. See my clarification above.
We are free to choose whatever meaning we want anarchy to mean for us. That is what this post is about. Finish the statement: “Anarchy is…” with your own beliefs. People on this post are claiming that it means order. That’s fine with me. I disagree but I don’t call them out and claim that they are wrong.
I don’t define words; I look them up in the dictionary. I find anarchy to be animalistic, barbaric, and a terrible state of being. Anarchy means that property rights are not protected… that includes life itself.
Skyler, claiming that I err in my belief is innappropriate. Your explaination and clairification fails the test of my dictionary. But you are free to define it as “the absence of unrighteous dominion” if you wish. I respectfully disagree.
Here is the exact defintion from the online etymology dictionary: " anarchy
1530s, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader"
