Looks like anarchy is the answer for peace

[Improvision]

Anarchic Iceland

http://www.eurekatube.net/index.php/articles/48-anarchic-iceland

Anarchic Ireland

http://www.eurekatube.net/index.php/articles/49-anarchic-ireland

 

There are some more recent smaller anarchic communities that have existed within a government dictated borders. It is usually in far off rural areas that a government may not have bothered to enforce with any local stationed regulators.

 

Found a video on anarchy vs statism (government)

Part 2

Part 3

[Sisyphus]

Small groups of like-minded people choosing to live together without formal rules within a larger state is one thing, doing away with that larger state entirely is quite another. State-level anarchy is historically the least stabile of all possible arrangements. What it means, practically speaking, is arbitrary-despotism-by-best-armed. See Somalia or Afghanistan.*

 

Anarchists often respond to this by saying that it's always the case, that "the government" is always just the best armed guys, with "a monopoly on violence." True. It is always the case. There's no such thing as a situation where somebody doesn't have the most guns, so the best solution is to make that somebody the collective "us," answerable to everyone and agreed-upon non-arbitrary rules. In other words, a representative government with laws that nobody is above.

 

*I know there are arguable exceptions, like Hong Kong. The point is there's nothing to prevent the more common case.

[Improvision]

Iceland survived with anarchy for over 290 years without any large scale civil war. Ireland lasted for 1000 years. They collapsed when they had become less anarchic and/or when they were invaded by armies of foreign non-anarchic states.

 

In an anarchy it doesn't matter who has the most arms, because you cannot simply order one group of people beyond their free will to go fight another group. Anyone who had leadership of any group was at the mercy of whether or not the followers agreed with who they agreed upon as the leader. A leader comes about as other people willingly follow, because they feel that the leader is going to lead with their best interest. If a leader wants to fight another group of people and the followers do not feel the need to attack, they can simply ignore the leader and the leader would be left to fight another group on their own or possibly with small support against what they individually consider an "enemy" of unknown size and strength.

 

People will go with ruling that is profitable, and war is not profitable.

[Sisyphus]

I think you're imagining a much more idyllic and much more "anarchic" existence in those places than actually took place. Is a tribal society "anarchy?" Just because you've got competing local warlords of varying viciousness keeping one another in check and thus no "major civil wars," doesn't mean it isn't rule of the strong. In anarchy there is no recourse except individual violence, and so the strongest necessarily are in charge, no matter the degree to which they choose to exercise it. You say, "you can't get people to fight for you," but clearly you can. The first group to ally themselves with the purpose of subjugating everyone else can and have done so, thousands of times over. Think of Europe, post collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

[Improvision]

In anarchy, leadership is paid for and supported by the followers. The people who are doing any trade and commerce are the ones that are making the money to fund any kind of armed force, so it would naturally be in the best interest of anyone with any group fighting ability to protect the people who are supporting their economy. Any fighting would be between fighters themselves. If one fighting group is victorious against another fighting group, then whoever on the winning side of the fighters is left standing from the conflict is going to have to fight other individual armed people if it wants to conquer those people and those people would of been the ones who are producing any kind of wealth. Another protective "militia" can be paid for if one militia falls. Surrounding individual groups of people who also have their own militias can aid their partners or simply not do any business with groups that are known to be aggressive and the aggressors are left to their own funding if they have any at all.

 

Being a warlord in an anarchy would not be profitable and therefore not sustainable.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Improvision

[Sisyphus]

Well, first of all, you're not describing anarchy. You're describing a small state without its own military, but instead reliant on mercenaries. States that rely heavily on mercenaries always, always fail, usually quite quickly. They don't fight well, they aren't loyal, and they often turn on their employers.This is a big part of what destroyed the Roman Empire, in fact, but that's hardly the only instance. Machievelli talks about this extensively in The Prince.

[Improvision]

Well, first of all, you're not describing anarchy. You're describing a small state without its own military, but instead reliant on mercenaries. States that rely heavily on mercenaries always, always fail, usually quite quickly. They don't fight well, they aren't loyal, and they often turn on their employers.This is a big part of what destroyed the Roman Empire, in fact, but that's hardly the only instance. Machievelli talks about this extensively in The Prince.

A mercenary has to be loyal to their source of money/support in order to be able to function. No money, no guns.

 

You might as well describe the US or any country's military/police as a mercenary group.

[SH3RL0CK]

Being a warlord in an anarchy would not be profitable and therefore not sustainable.

 

Really? I was under the impression that Piracy was quite profitable (for the pirates) in the waters around Somalia.

 

If the warlords have the guns, they can just take whatever they want from whomever has the money and the merchants can't really do anything about it. Seriously, how will the merchants, peasants, etc. prevent the warlords from taking their belongings?

 

Their only option is to hire "protection" from other warlords (until such time as they run out of money of course). You do see that is the same thing as having the warlords simply take their stuff?

[Sisyphus]

A mercenary has to be loyal to their source of money/support in order to be able to function. No money, no guns.

 

You might as well describe the US or any country's military/police as a mercenary group.

 

Not really, no. They can sell their services to a higher bidder. Or simply take what they want from their employer or set themselves up as their leaders, since they're the ones who are armed. And even when they don't, they're still rarely effective except against much weaker opponents, since their only motivation is money. You can't collect a paycheck if you're dead, so they're never going to put themselves in serious danger.

[Improvision]

Really? I was under the impression that Piracy was quite profitable (for the pirates) in the waters around Somalia.

 

If the warlords have the guns, they can just take whatever they want from whomever has the money and the merchants can't really do anything about it. Seriously, how will the merchants, peasants, etc. prevent the warlords from taking their belongings?

 

Their only option is to hire "protection" from other warlords (until such time as they run out of money of course). You do see that is the same thing as having the warlords simply take their stuff?

Somalia as a country has not been stable, since the people were devastated by the wars with and from other countries. Farmland and most production had been destroyed/ruined.

 

Individual merchants and civilians would been armed themselves. In any stable country/community a loyal military is formed and also funded mostly by and of its own self sufficient people.

[SH3RL0CK]

Somalia as a country has not been stable, since the people were devastated by the wars with and from other countries. Farmland and most production had been destroyed/ruined.

 

Individual merchants and civilians would been armed themselves. In any stable country/community a loyal military is formed and also funded mostly by and of its own self sufficient people.

 

Yes, anarchy and stability do not go together. I agree there has to be some centralized governing body to maintain order.

[Improvision]

Yes, anarchy and stability do not go together. I agree there has to be some centralized governing body to maintain order.

In anarchy the governing body is everyone, not a separate entity with exclusive authority.

 

America has a centralized governing body, ruling and enforcing law on its own accord, and our economy and society is deteriorating at the same time. Like many state governed countries in the past, where the people have little or no power.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Improvision

[SH3RL0CK]

In anarchy the governing body is everyone, not a separate entity with exclusive authority.

 

No, a democracy is when everyone is the governing body.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

 

In the United States and Europe, people actually live in a republic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

 

Anarchy, dy definition, has no governing at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

–noun 1. a state of society without government or law.

[Improvision]

No, a democracy is when everyone is the governing body.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

 

 

In the United States and Europe, people actually live in a republic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

 

 

Anarchy, dy definition, has no governing at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

A separate individual state (governing body) with power over the people is not a democracy. In anarchy, there is no governing body because the whole population is the governing body itself. Edited May 29, 2009 by Improvision

[SH3RL0CK]

A separate individual state (governing body) with power over the people is not a democracy.

 

True, in a democracy, the people has the power over the government.

 

What you are describing is somethin akin to a dictatorship

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

 

or perhaps a monarchy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.

 

You can read about various forms of government here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

[Improvision]

True, in a democracy, the people has the power over the government.

 

What you are describing is somethin akin to a dictatorship

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship

 

 

or perhaps a monarchy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monarchy

 

 

You can read about various forms of government here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

A separate government makes law that it enforces on ALL who are governed.

 

The people voted against gay marriage and it was government itself that actually writes down and enforces the law. The government has exclusive law making power. Before the law made it illegal, there was no one to stop homosexuals from getting married.

[SH3RL0CK]

A separate government makes law that it enforces on ALL who are governed.

 

The people voted against gay marriage and it was government itself that actually writes down and enforces the law. The government has exclusive law making power.

 

Yes, you have correctly stated the definition of government and provided an example of government working.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government

 

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration

[Improvision]

Yes, you have correctly stated the definition of government and provided an example of how government working.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government

The government works by enforcing law and punishing those who disobey, and does so with exclusive power.

 

It can pass any law, regardless of how harmless a private person's activities are that happen to be banned.

 

People have no power over government, when the government can enforce rule on other people and people can't enforce rule on it.

 

A centralized/self-ruling government is naturally not apart of any democracy at all. Any democracy in such a case is an illusion for those who are ruled.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Improvision

[SH3RL0CK]

The government works by enforcing law and punishing those who disobey, and does so with exclusive power.

yes.

It can pass any law, regardless of how harmless a private person's activities are that happen to be banned.

In theory, yes. In practice, I would say no.

People have no power over government, when the government can enforce rule on other people and people can't enforce rule on it.

Not true. In a democracy, people have the option to vote. There is also always the option of immigrating to where there is a different government. Rebellion is also an option.

A centralized/self-ruling government is naturally not apart of any democracy at all.

True. See the definition of democracy above. But aren't you seeking a form of government that provides peace? Both a democracy and a dictatorship can (in theory) provide peace. As can anarchy (in theory). In practice, peace is much more difficult (especially under anarchy) to obtain as touched upon earlier in this thread.

[Improvision]

yes. In theory, yes. In practice, I would say no. Not true. In a democracy, people have the option to vote. There is also always the option of immigrating to where there is a different government. Rebellion is also an option.

True. See the definition of democracy above. But aren't you seeking a form of government that provides peace? Both a democracy and a dictatorship can (in theory) provide peace. As can anarchy (in theory). In practice, peace is much more difficult (especially under anarchy) to obtain as touched upon earlier in this thread.

What law has a government passed that you or others not in office had the power to create or overturn themselves? If they simply disregarded the law, who is the one that has the power to put them on trial and punish them?

 

Immigration, not out of free choice, but simply to escape someone who is ruling over your life and go to another person/group with the same power?

 

Rebellion against those who will lock you up in prison or kill you if you try to resist their authority?

 

With government, peace exists only to the extent that people obey (peaceful) law and submit to those who are enforcing it.

 

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws with equal power amongst themselves. Those who do not agree with one groups laws can choose another group to join or get off the grid without protection of being with other people or form a new group of their own with others who decide to follow. Law can be peacefully and equally created and can also be peacefully disobeyed to the extent that other people are not harmed.

 

Ruling with force just simply forces those who are ruled to retaliate with more force. Violent force breeds more violent force.

[Baby Astronaut]

State-level anarchy is historically the least stabile of all possible arrangements. What it means, practically speaking, is arbitrary-despotism-by-best-armed. See Somalia or Afghanistan.*

Not that I'm disagreeing with the need for general/communal rules of some type, but many nations are like that precisely because of external governments. Think of past or modern colonialism, stripping the nation of raw goods/materials. And still it continues by organized trade stipulations on nations mired in debt to world institutions. (Ethiopia didn't become poverty stricken because its people were "lazy" )

 

*I know there are arguable exceptions, like Hong Kong.

Case in point. England didn't rape their base materials/livelihoods.

[Sisyphus]

What law has a government passed that you or others not in office had the power to create or overturn themselves?

 

We elect representatives, and they make the laws. Run for office, or vote for someone who shares your views. That's what "representative democracy" means.

 

If they simply disregarded the law, who is the one that has the power to put them on trial and punish them?

 

I don't know who the "they" is in this sentence.

 

With government, peace exists only to the extent that people obey (peaceful) law and submit to those who are enforcing it.

 

And with anarchy, peace exists only to the extent that I like you, or that you personally can defend yourself. Of course, if I'm stronger than you, I can kill you and take your stuff without consequence.

 

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws with equal power amongst themselves.

 

No, if there is law, that's not anarchy. That's government.

 

Those who do not agree with one groups laws can choose another group to join or get off the grid without protection of being with other people or form a new group of their own with others who decide to follow.

 

You mean.... "Immigration, not out of free choice, but simply to escape someone who is ruling over your life and go to another person/group with the same power?"

 

Law can be peacefully and equally created and can also be peacefully disobeyed to the extent that other people are not harmed.

 

And what if people are harmed? The rule is enforced by force, correct? THAT'S GOVERNMENT.

 

And why only if people are harmed? What if people want laws that make victimless crimes?

 

What you're describing is a small democracy, not anarchy. And ironically, you're ruling it with an iron fist, by only letting people make certain kinds of laws.

[Baby Astronaut]

In anarchy, there is no governing body because the whole population is the governing body itself.

And once a dispute arises (murder, theft, proving guilt), separations occur as people naturally take sides. Instead of an objective government court system being entrusted to handle justice, it could easily result in a more unfair way of consequences dealt out.

 

I agree that people might live in harmony without national laws too, but you can't have much growth without a system in place. And that means government.

 

What law has a government passed that you or others not in office had the power to create or overturn themselves? If they simply disregarded the law, who is the one that has the power to put them on trial and punish them?

It all depends on the kind of government. We do need to make leaders more accountable, not get rid of laws.

 

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws...

Not quite anarchy then, huh?

[SH3RL0CK]

... That's what "representative democracy" means...

 

...No, if there is law, that's not anarchy. That's government...

 

...The rule is enforced by force, correct? THAT'S GOVERNMENT. ...

 

...What you're describing is a small democracy, not anarchy...

 

And from Baby Astronaut:

 

Anarchy allows people to make their own laws...

 

Not quite anarchy then, huh?

 

Improvision, Please help me out, I don't understand you when you use the wrong word. I provided a bunch of definitions to help clarify the meaning of words that you are using incorrectly. Please use the correct word for what you are trying to say; for example, please don't use "anarchy" when you mean "democracy" or "government".

[Improvision]

We elect representatives, and they make the laws. Run for office, or vote for someone who shares your views. That's what "representative democracy" means.

 

 

 

I don't know who the "they" is in this sentence.

 

 

 

And with anarchy, peace exists only to the extent that I like you, or that you personally can defend yourself. Of course, if I'm stronger than you, I can kill you and take your stuff without consequence.

 

 

 

No, if there is law, that's not anarchy. That's government.

 

 

 

You mean.... "Immigration, not out of free choice, but simply to escape someone who is ruling over your life and go to another person/group with the same power?"

 

 

 

And what if people are harmed? The rule is enforced by force, correct? THAT'S GOVERNMENT.

 

And why only if people are harmed? What if people want laws that make victimless crimes?

 

What you're describing is a small democracy, not anarchy. And ironically, you're ruling it with an iron fist, by only letting people make certain kinds of laws.

Representatives can lie to get the vote of many people (voluntary and individual vote/consent is an anarchic principle). When in office, the people no longer have any say and they certainly can't punish for unjust actions and ruling/law made b the representative in a partial-democracy. Not everyone votes for and wants the same thing. A state makes a law and enforces it and everyone, not just those who wanted it. The power is not in the people's hands.

 

"They", referring to those who disregard a law. Whatever law it may be.

 

If you tried kill me in anarchy, me and my own people will be fighting against you. If you cause trouble, assuming you can manage to do it to another person without being stopped by that person or their people, other people are going to deal with you as they see you are a proven and obvious threat. There will be consequences.

 

Anarchic cooperation leads to AGREED upon law. Not law that is dictated from an exclusive authority, which would be forced/government law. There is a difference.

 

If people are harmed, the one(s) responsible will have to deal with other people who will do something about the situation. Without the need of command from an exclusive high-up unto mindless robots.

 

People left to themselves make common law, only for protection. A law that serves no obvious purpose wouldn't even come into existence.

 

Law is not limited to centralized and exclusively forced governance.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And once a dispute arises (murder, theft, proving guilt), separations occur as people naturally take sides. Instead of an objective government court system being entrusted to handle justice, it could easily result in a more unfair way of consequences dealt out.

 

I agree that people might live in harmony without national laws too, but you can't have much growth without a system in place. And that means government.

 

 

It all depends on the kind of government. We do need to make leaders more accountable, not get rid of laws.

 

 

Not quite anarchy then, huh?

Did you look at any of the links?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anarchy means no ruler. It doesn't mean "no rules". If there are no rules, then that would be "anomie".

Edited May 29, 2009 by Improvision
Consecutive posts merged.