I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government.
After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can “work” is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no “head of state”. The other aspect of a “true democracy” is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation.
Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
Tell that to those who would insist government is required to allow commerce to occur.
Also, tell this to those who would aspire to abuse the market & try to coerce a non-voluntary proto-government into existence (I’m not objecting to the markets, just saying that this is obviously a possibility, although one I would think PDA’s & armed individuals would be in a good position to stop such).
Stop there. Now, either a) this is actually not a government and so it is not surprising that some anarchists could find it reasonable or b) it is a government and, by definition, anarchists oppose it.
The price and behaviour of the firm is not determined whether there is government or not, because “the price is governed” by supply and demand. Only question is how does the firm know that will get payment for products and services?
The question above have been theoretically solved and proved. Law can work even if there are no courts and governemnt. We have to just concern the costs. In my opinion costs are higher in world without official courts and laws.
If we have “true democracy” how is legislation going to be promoted? You always need someone or some group (let’s call it party) who suggest sollution. And for this sollution this group will want some reward, or not?
Spideynw, It would be democractic only in that it appliedarbitrarysocial constructs to groups of people. What is the purpose of the vote if everyone could choose to ignore it? And if it can’t be enforced wont some places simply cease voting? And in this event wouldn’t any centralized legislator collapse? But why should any such govenrment exist at all if it served no purpose?
How will be relations between people coordinated? I don’t mean moral imperatives or laws. I believe these can exist without government, but (maybe I’m too limited [:D]) but I can’t see any solid rule I can rely on. Maybe it is private property what matter in world without government. What do you think? What about externalities?
" On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
-Lysander Spooner: No Treason
Truly voting is the most oppressive tools that has been aggrandized by populations.
That’s exactly the point: this government won’t be able to do anything (including interfering in your life). Actually, this might work: people whofeel they need a political process and some kind of government will accept it and might be even active in it but without being able to harm productive citizens. Also, this could be a “dummy” government that could fool the neighboring states. Governments prefer to deal with other governments and anarchies tend to make them wary (what if it spreads to our countries? Let’s send some troops before it happens). When they see what looks like a government too they are more likely to leave the anarchy state alone.
The only problem I see is what will happen if a law is indeed passed one day? Is it supposed to be enforce? This can be fixed by turning these laws into recommendations only, not be enforced on people without their consent.
Well, I think if you get into the meat of what an anarchist is, it is not simply someone who is opposed to government, it is someone opposed to government force. They do not want to be “ruled” by someone else. In a true democracy, everyone has full veto power, as such, no one has to be subjected to anyone else’s will. And if you do not get a chance to vote, and legislation is passed, then you are still not subjected to someone else’s will. But a true democracy would also satisfy all the statists need for a government.
Your statement makes no sense. There would still be a market. Actually, that is all there really would be, because there would be no legislation from the government to “rule” the market. It would be a completely free market. Free from government interference.