Is it an endpoint?
Is it the absence of the State? and if so what is the definition of the State?
Is it measured in degrees?
I think it is recognition of self ownership.
Anarchy is the condition where a group of individuals interact with one another without another group of individuals exercising force and violence upon them. You may not have a state and still not have anarchy as there could be more than one group attempting to exercise force and violence.
Yes, Commerce is the absence of force. So without force you would have people order their society through commerce or non-violent means. A society that is an anarchy would be the most peaceful and most wealthy society possible as all interaction between individuals would be voluntary and therefore efficient.
No/Not Exactly, it is the absence of having individuals use force and violence upon society, an anarchy is not possible with the State but still may not exist if there are non-monopoly groups of criminals using force and violence on society. The state is the group of individuals exercising a monopoly of violence over society.
Yes, The measure of anarchy is really a measure of freedom. There is a continum here with anarchy on one side where no force is applied by a group of individuals to society through progressively fascist societies like those of the Western World to outright socialist totalitarian societies like the dictatorships of the old Soviet Union.
Please Note:
-
Fascism or less accurately “National Socialism” is an economic term for the state having significant dealings in the economic affairs of society with private ownership of the means of production being in name only like Italy in the 1920s and 1930s.
-
I describe things in economic terms and not political terms. I believe that all political and economic rights stem from the right of an individual to own and dispose of property in any manner that individual wishes as long as that individual does not steal, damage or destroy the property of another individual without the consent of the other individual.
Anarchy is generally recognized as a lack of rulers, and is often equated with a lack of law and order.
Libertarians who advocate anarchy generally advocate anarcho-capitalism, a society without rulers but with enough common respect and belief in property rights and free market capitalism to generally successfully defend what these ideologies consider justice from theives, statists, or leftists who do not.
Some may consider it less of an endpoint than a singularity. Once some subset of society gives enough support toward the idea to make it a self-sustaining political reality, its advocates believe it would work better than prior political arrangements, and thus forever change society. It is like asking if democracy or the Enlightenment is and endpoint. Not likely, but it is doubtful that absolutist monarchy will ever be re-established. It is doubtful that people will stop believing in natural rights and believe that others can legitimately enslave them. (Although our current episodes in collectivism seems to suggest otherwise, those advocating collectivism do not see it as such. They see the state as an extension of themselves - as a means to exercise greater freedoms and protect life [universal health care]).
The main distinction between states and rebels/criminals is that states are recognized as having more power than the rebels/criminals. As such, the state effectively has a virtual monopoly on aggressive violence. In an anarchist society, statists would not represent the state (or a state) but a rebellious or criminal sect. If the society is anarchist, there is no state.
There very well could be a situation like in Somalia where it is unclear whether one lives in anarchy or under a state. There is no realistically plausible method to determine which ideology is more prevalent, and which ideology is backed by the most willpower and brute force, other than for them to resort to total war.
So then it is an individual achievement not dependent on any third party action?
Given the history of humanity is it reasonable that a condition will exist that no human anywhere will be involved in using force against another human. Your definition seems an impossibility.
Anarchy: no government/chiefs/rulers.
I agree with your distinction but from the point of the freedom lover why should we make that distinction? The strength of the state compared to a large criminal organization doesnt change the net effect.
Isn’t that what they represent now? A criminal sect?
So what you are saying is that it is really a matter of perspective rather than a specific circumstance. If I think the state is just a criminal sect then I am living in anarachy whereas you might think the state is beyond a criminal sect with greater power so you are a slave. Is that right?
Is that achievable with the human species? Isn’t it natural for humans to organize and create heirarchical structures even voulntarily? Doesn’t history suggest that these organizations will then have conflict?
Well anarchists will surely organize into something, but I think the recognition of self ownership is the prerequisite.
I think it is recognition of self ownership.
This is somewhat necessary for an anarchic society to not be like the communist power grab of the Spanish Revolution. I don’t think it defines anarchy though.
The only dictionary definition that isn’t blatantly wrong is “absence of government”. Even then there can be a distinction made between ‘state’ and ‘government’. (read more)
Libertarians don’t care about the existence of ‘voluntary governments’ (allowing secession down to the level of individuals) other than that they are potential threats. There would be no laws for thought crimes like dreaming of riding an oyster shell on Karl Marx’s beard. People in a stateless society would be allowed to cede their rights to a government, so long as they don’t coerce others to do so, i.e. aggrandize power as a state.
The majority of people are naïve and ignorant, but not purely evil like states. Many will simply enjoy the increased prosperity and security.
Is it an endpoint?
No, libertarianism is not utopian nor relies on “all men being angels”. We will need to be continually aware that various forms of fanaticism can lead to statism.
There could be said to be a tipping point, where a single society joins enough power under a polycentric legal order to be able to overcome the tide of statist thugs and their zombies. Likewise, I suggest another tipping point may occur worldwide as people abandon their state and/or charitable, vigilante military groups are able to force dictators out.
Is it the absence of the State? Is it measured in degrees?
I think that “a stateless society” is fine to define ‘anarchy’. A libertarian society is necessarily anarchic. A momentary lack of government makes no guarantee that many people will be ignorant of libertarianism and chaos will rule (as in Spain). The article above can help you define ‘state’.
I consider myself a voluntarist rather than anarcho-capitalist for a few reasons. One is that eventually all (coercive) “political” actions would need to cease for anarchy to come about. Capitalism relies on voluntary association between people. It can’t be a result of initiating aggression. Austrian economics explains why these two things will naturally arise from voluntarism. The words anarchy and capitalism are also so twisted by statists, as evidenced by the other dictionary definitions.
I don’t see the point in trying to measure freedom in degrees. The state is like ancient animist beliefs and can safely be forgotten.
Can you have a society without somebody intiating aggression?
I think it is a society that refuses to pay people money if consent was not obtained in the first place.
I agree. The only reason for not making the distinction, however, is a simple matter of pleasing one’s own ego in defiance of accepting reality. We should recognize we are fighting an uphill battle, but fight it anyway. Simply because the statist ideology is more prevalent and the state is more powerful than anarcho-capitalism and those who rebel against the state does not mean that the state is just and that we should obey it or accept its ideology.
Maybe. It depends upon the legal code you endorse. To us, the state is obviously a criminal sect. It violates our laws.
To most Americans, the state is lawful, so long as it is democratic. Their law, while not strictly codified, is based very simply upon democratic elections and the appearance separation of powers among branches. Those protesting the constitutionality of this or that, opposing wars for reasons of international law, etc. are fringe groups. Most people believe that the government has unlimited power, within its branch, so long as it was properly democratically elected. Thus, most people would not conclude the state is a criminal sect.
Of course, if most people believed and acted upon our political philosophy, they too would regard statists and external states as criminal sects.
Well, it’s not JUST perspective. I could declare myself a sovereign individual and say the U.S. has no taxation authority upon me. Could I successfully defend myself from the U.S. government? Highly unlikely. If I actually could, then my claim would definitely have more substance, both to me and the perspectives of others. Perhaps for myself to successfully defend myself from the government, others would need to already believe in and support my ideology and my individual sovereignty.
The truth is most likely what an impartial/independent observer would use to describe a set of circumstances. The important thing is to remember the labels sovereign anarchist or criminal rebel are only important in how well they inform us of the prevailing political ideology for some set of people (usually geographically defined). This is important because prevailing political ideologies inform us of how people will react to events. If the prevailing ideology is statism and I am labelled a criminal rebel, there will likely be few who will help me repel the state’s aggressive violence. If I am viewed as a sovereign anarchist, there would likely be more help, and perhaps we successfully repel the state.
Many outsiders to Somalia have no conception of sustainable anarchy. They see it as a fleeting circumstance that will eventually give way to state control. Thus, they may be inclined to label the anarchy as unwanted lawlessness rather than a prevailing political ideology.
I think the main problem is really that “anarchy” is far too broad. It can refer to circumstances and/or political philosophy, yet the circumstance of anarchy may not be due to the general adherence to the political philosophy, but simply from no single political philosophy from becoming dominant, or from no group trying to establish itself as a state becoming dominant.
When I think of anarchy, I think of a society that recognizes and supports a society without a monopoly of laws, courts, and police forces. Libertarian anarcho-capitalism would require society to additionally recognize and support property rights and the non-aggression principle.
I think a better term for describing anarchist political philosophy is anarchism.
Yes.
Yes. And?
Perhaps. What’s your point?
Yes. A State is a territorial monopolist of ultimate jurisdiction.
We need to remember that anarchy is compatible with a variety of institutional structures. Just as there are different types of government, there are different types of anarchy.
Roderick Long has an interesting article on this.
I second this. I would also clarify that “monopolist” refers to a monopoly on force, meaning that to be a State you must have sufficient control over the use of force to determine significantly the terms on which others can have access to it.
Yes and no. It’s a matter of degree in the sense that a given territory can be more or less anarchic depending on how concentrated control over the use of force is; but there’s a fuzzy cut-off point implied by the word “significantly” above, in that once a person or group so dominates the use of force in a given territory as to determine significantly (however that word is construed) the terms on which others may have access to it (the use of force), we would no longer say that that territory is in a state of anarchy.
In other words: anarchy (n.) - a condition where no one person or organization has enough control over the use of force in a given territory to significantly determine the terms on which (essentially all) other people may have access to the use of force.
Ans isn’t our definition the only one that matters? The criminals will not define themselves as criminals, normally.
And yet the Taliban in Afghanistan are successfully defending themselves from the US. I am no fan of the Taliban but don’ tthey demonstrate that it really is a matter of perspective. If I understand your arguement it is that anarchy is also based on the likelihood that one can defend themselves from the criminal groups. But if we make that the condition then a state could be defined as two guys on the street corner that you are afraid of. Doesn’t it make sense to label them all criminals and act accordingly, meaning sometimes I might get robbed but I dont provide morally acceptable term based on the size of the criminal group. Some criminal groups I might have to abide by more than others but I don’t let the criminal define my existence. I am sovereign, it is not dependent on them letting me be free but I relaize I will have to face criminals in the world.
This is why the trying to create “anarchy” is pointless. What we should be advocating is simply less coercion in the world in whatever form it occurs. We can not eliminate coercion nor can everyone agree on when the state has ended because as you point out that is in fact subjective to one’s point of view.
The “state” just seems like an excuse for inaction.
This also describes the local street gang. Or the Mafia. are they states?
And what country has this? The US is losing in Afghanistan and the US is the strongest state in the world. So the monopoly is obviously not what you think it is. Certainly the Taliban do not have the impression that the US has a monopoly on force. Maybe you are significantly controlled but there are other with less resources than you that are not so that argues strongly against your idea of them having a monopoly.
So the US by that definition is in anarchy because gun ownership is very easy so anyone who has a gun can use force.