Specifically, is anarchy possible on a large scale over a long time period? To me this seems a more immediate question than whether such a situation would be desirable.
I ask because I can’t really think of any historical examples. Even the most primitive societies pretty much all have distinct communities (even of only a few dozen people) with leaders (village elder, best hunter, etc.) that everyone looks to to settle disputes and to rally everyone to common causes when necessary. And of course the larger the population, the more entrenched and formalized power structures tend to become. And when large central governments collapse, what’s left always seem to be smaller, de facto “governments” of the guys with most capability for violence. Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Somalia and parts of Afghanistan today, etc.
So the question is, how can a state of anarchy possibly be maintained, given the twin facts that a) humans seem to naturally organize and submit themselves to the group, and b) the guy with the most guns is de facto in charge anyway, whether or not he chooses to exercise his power?
The corollary to this is, if SOMEBODY has to be in charge, then isn’t it a stabile government of laws accountable to democratic sentiment preferable to the arbitrary will of the biggest thug of the moment?
Sure, we’re under anarchy right now. The US and China are in a state of anarchy. Portugal and Canada are in a state of anarchy. Etc.
I think your question is, can there be individualist anarchism. That is the challenge. How do we decentralize power to the smallest possible unit.
Actually, there is a case against this. And that is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s “Democracy the God that Failed”.
Democracy is simply mob rule. It has nothing to do with accountability. We’re knee deep in unaccountable democratic regimes today. I would argue there are no accountable democratic regimes in the West because it is not a system of accountability, but responsibility laundering, and all of the incentives that entails.
I would argue that it is even more natural than the sovereign state system, which is a product of 17th century European politics, and in fact most sovereign states are collapsing these days.
One thousand years ago, if someone asked if going into space was possible, would anyone have been able to answer authoritatively?
If 500 years ago, someone asked if men and women could have equal status in society, would anyone have been able to answer authoritatively?
Is it possible? I can’t see why not. I think it is inevitable, just as death is inevitable, but I cannot prove that any more than I can claim precisely when I will die, and from what, and yet I am sure you would all agree, I will definitely die one day.
Actually when democratic states were emerging from monarchic europe, everyone was predicting that they would fail within weeks and be completely unstable.
I mean, if democracy can ‘work’, why can’t anarchism? Its a much sounder idea. We win the practicality debate against the statists
I’m not advocating democracy, in and of itself. I’m suggesting that it is preferable to an autocratic warlord. And “accountable” is a relative term, is it not?
Sigh. You mean anarchy in the same way that Spain and Portugal are in anarchy, right? But I thought we’d settled that that isn’t what I’m talking about, and so pre-Christian Ireland is no more an example than Europe today.
And so could you, my friend!
The United States is not destroyed, it’s just wasting money. I violate Al Qaeda’s demands every day to no consequence. If I break U.S. federal laws, someone will come and take me away by force. Being in charge in the sense that governments are in charge does not mean having 100% control over every event within its borders. (If it were, there would be no such thing as government, and you’d all be complaining about nothing.)
I also addressed individualist anarchism up thread.
And I have before, and I will again. Your point is?
I’m not saying the US is destroyed. I am saying that the destruction of American wealth, is partly due to Al Qaeda. Thus, they have power over American wealth.
The national debt says otherwise. The soldiers who come home in body bags say otherwise.
Of course not, because most relationships are anarchistic. They resolve in the marketplace. It is impossible to have a government which can monitor and control every transaction. That’s because there are knowledge problems with so much centralization. That is the foundation of the socialist calculation argument.
Ok. I’m not familiar with that. What is the compelling case that an autocratic warlord is preferable to a constitutional republic?
I mean that a democratically elected leader is bound by laws and must maintain the approval of a majority of those who care. A despot only has to wield more capacity for violence than his rival. That politicians are adept at shifting responsibility does not mean those two situations are equivalent.
Sorry. I had my facts a little wrong. If I had cited myself I would have caught my error. This is what i meant to refer to. The rest of the article should address the OP very well.
But if there’s a competing arbiter he can turn to that one. And these tribes typically left their members alone if they hadn’t comitted any crimes. The only time when you have no choice in who’s condemning you is when they think you’ve done something wrong
Obviously not descriptive of all ancient societies, but of the ones in question.
One criterion: Voluntarism.
I’d rather be. It’d be cheaper than this war uncle sam is waging. Regardless, I only used it as an example to show how the guy with the most guns doesn’t always win. You might think the USA has beat them, but its a Pyrrhic victory at best.
My point is you were saying that the fact that one can leave rather than submit means there isn’t a state. Are you saying that you don’t live under a state currently?
They have an effect, as does everyone. So again, does that mean there is no such thing as the state?
If that was the case, then the American revolution would never have happened.
I’m not claiming they are equivalent. I am saying that the incentives are worse for democratic politicians because they have no stake in things beyond their own re-election and the length of their term. They are short term managers of long term projects. It’s the same reason why you don’t let your three year old plan the family finances.
