Anarchy

[crapistan]

I'd say how it came to be is relevant.

 

Government may have a monopoly of force' date=' but i'd rather have a monopoly of force constrainted by at least a minimum of democratic and legal propriety, rather than, say a monopoly of force opperating a fascistic or communistic form of government.[/quote']

 

My point was simply to define the definition of anarchy, as the lack of an entity holding a monopoly of force. The issue being addressed is simply what government is. I would agree that how this power is delegated is important, but it adds no real substance to the objective of defining anarchy and government.

 

 

 

I understand how democracy can be seen as the dictatorship of the majority, but better that than the dictatorship of one man or armed clique.

 

 

51% of the population could in theory enslave the other 49%. If America's elections were more based upon a popular vote (and with the lack of a senate), California, with a massive population could direct the feds agenda to for example: Ban dairy production in Wisconsin, causing an economic (possibly humanitiarian) disaster in my region. Then California with a majority population verses Wisconsin, would enjoy a monopoly on the dairy industry.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would not enjoy being under the iron fist of another Stalin (I would be among the first to die in opposition). Above all I support equal representation of the states in the senate and I enjoy the rule of law, not of men. (what the heck was that quote?) True democracy would be the rule of the majority of people as a dictatorship would the rule of a single person. Neither concept has a foundation in basic rule of law. This is very dangerous... Remember how the Greek City States eventually went from a free thinking, artistic, scientific society to tyrranical, paranoid militaristic mob rule?

 

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC!

[Sayonara]

Enslave is such a dramatic term.

[Sayonara]

Enslave is such a dramatic term.

[Aardvark]

I enjoy the rule of law' date=' not of men. (what the heck was that quote?) True democracy would be the rule of the majority of people as a dictatorship would the rule of a single person. Neither concept has a foundation in basic rule of law. This is very dangerous... Remember how the Greek City States eventually went from a free thinking, artistic, scientific society to tyrranical, paranoid militaristic mob rule?

 

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC![/quote']

 

So you enjoy the rule of law not of men, i agree that is important, from my point of view the codification of the law by King Alfred, which established the principle that no man is above the law is of crucial importance.

 

But you are evading the question of where the law comes from. Somewhere men have to make laws, whether democratically or on a dictatorial fashion.

 

Or else you can advocate the abolition of government which would directly lead to the abolition of law and the rule of the law.

 

If you want a rule of law you have to accept the existence of a form of government.

[Aardvark]

I enjoy the rule of law' date=' not of men. (what the heck was that quote?) True democracy would be the rule of the majority of people as a dictatorship would the rule of a single person. Neither concept has a foundation in basic rule of law. This is very dangerous... Remember how the Greek City States eventually went from a free thinking, artistic, scientific society to tyrranical, paranoid militaristic mob rule?

 

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC![/quote']

 

So you enjoy the rule of law not of men, i agree that is important, from my point of view the codification of the law by King Alfred, which established the principle that no man is above the law is of crucial importance.

 

But you are evading the question of where the law comes from. Somewhere men have to make laws, whether democratically or on a dictatorial fashion.

 

Or else you can advocate the abolition of government which would directly lead to the abolition of law and the rule of the law.

 

If you want a rule of law you have to accept the existence of a form of government.

[crapistan]

So you enjoy the rule of law not of men' date=' i agree that is important, from my point of view the codification of the law by King Alfred, which established the principle that no man is above the law is of crucial importance.

 

But you are evading the question of where the law comes from. Somewhere men have to make laws, whether democratically or on a dictatorial fashion.[/quote']

 

Yes, someone has to make laws. However it is still the rule of the law. Rule of men would mean arbitrary enforcement, inequality in the eyes of the law. I guess what I meant to say is not only rule of law, but equal application of law. (with the advent of affirmative action, I'm afraid its on the way out.) To expand on that a little, even those who make the laws are not exempt from it's application. (In theory anyway, in practice this is not an absolute)

 

 

Or else you can advocate the abolition of government which would directly lead to the abolition of law and the rule of the law.

 

If you want a rule of law you have to accept the existence of a form of government.

 

 

I've never been a advocate of any form of anarchy. It's illogical to expect humanity to follow such a policy, same as any social system such as anarcho-communism. However I am staunchly conservative, more government is bad but none at all is even worse.

 

Don't even get me started on the pros/cons of anarcho-communism.

[crapistan]

So you enjoy the rule of law not of men' date=' i agree that is important, from my point of view the codification of the law by King Alfred, which established the principle that no man is above the law is of crucial importance.

 

But you are evading the question of where the law comes from. Somewhere men have to make laws, whether democratically or on a dictatorial fashion.[/quote']

 

Yes, someone has to make laws. However it is still the rule of the law. Rule of men would mean arbitrary enforcement, inequality in the eyes of the law. I guess what I meant to say is not only rule of law, but equal application of law. (with the advent of affirmative action, I'm afraid its on the way out.) To expand on that a little, even those who make the laws are not exempt from it's application. (In theory anyway, in practice this is not an absolute)

 

 

Or else you can advocate the abolition of government which would directly lead to the abolition of law and the rule of the law.

 

If you want a rule of law you have to accept the existence of a form of government.

 

 

I've never been a advocate of any form of anarchy. It's illogical to expect humanity to follow such a policy, same as any social system such as anarcho-communism. However I am staunchly conservative, more government is bad but none at all is even worse.

 

Don't even get me started on the pros/cons of anarcho-communism.

[CPL.Luke]

yeah damion you are talking abuot socialism or in this case libertarian socialism, not anarchy.

 

however in the case of anarchy the reason why it wouldn't work is this.

 

imagine a society that has 2 achers(sp) of land.

 

someone wants to take an acher of land to make a big house for himself and himself alone. thats half of the entire groups land that he would control.

 

of course everyone else wouldn't like this as they need the land to grow food and everything else.

 

so the rest of the group says that him building the house would not be fair and he cant do it.

 

however at this point you know longer have an anarchy you have a central authority (the group) anarchy is impossible unless you have a single family out on an island somewhere

[CPL.Luke]

yeah damion you are talking abuot socialism or in this case libertarian socialism, not anarchy.

 

however in the case of anarchy the reason why it wouldn't work is this.

 

imagine a society that has 2 achers(sp) of land.

 

someone wants to take an acher of land to make a big house for himself and himself alone. thats half of the entire groups land that he would control.

 

of course everyone else wouldn't like this as they need the land to grow food and everything else.

 

so the rest of the group says that him building the house would not be fair and he cant do it.

 

however at this point you know longer have an anarchy you have a central authority (the group) anarchy is impossible unless you have a single family out on an island somewhere

[crapistan]

yeah damion you are talking abuot socialism or in this case libertarian socialism' date=' not anarchy.

 

however in the case of anarchy the reason why it wouldn't work is this.

 

imagine a society that has 2 achers(sp) of land.

 

someone wants to take an acher of land to make a big house for himself and himself alone. thats half of the entire groups land that he would control.

 

of course everyone else wouldn't like this as they need the land to grow food and everything else.

 

so the rest of the group says that him building the house would not be fair and he cant do it.

 

however at this point you know longer have an anarchy you have a central authority (the group) anarchy is impossible unless you have a single family out on an island somewhere[/quote']

 

 

Exactly. To take it a step further, even then a single family has a power structure and a social ladder. Humans tend to organize themselves simply out of psychological urges. A "fend for yourself" society (or lack thereof) would soon fail because bands of humans would come together and work as a group. We would basically see civilization begin anew with progressive action being taken for the general advancement. In a free for all world, I could easily see individuals rising up by mobilizing those who are willing to make a place for themselves and their family.

[crapistan]

yeah damion you are talking abuot socialism or in this case libertarian socialism' date=' not anarchy.

 

however in the case of anarchy the reason why it wouldn't work is this.

 

imagine a society that has 2 achers(sp) of land.

 

someone wants to take an acher of land to make a big house for himself and himself alone. thats half of the entire groups land that he would control.

 

of course everyone else wouldn't like this as they need the land to grow food and everything else.

 

so the rest of the group says that him building the house would not be fair and he cant do it.

 

however at this point you know longer have an anarchy you have a central authority (the group) anarchy is impossible unless you have a single family out on an island somewhere[/quote']

 

 

Exactly. To take it a step further, even then a single family has a power structure and a social ladder. Humans tend to organize themselves simply out of psychological urges. A "fend for yourself" society (or lack thereof) would soon fail because bands of humans would come together and work as a group. We would basically see civilization begin anew with progressive action being taken for the general advancement. In a free for all world, I could easily see individuals rising up by mobilizing those who are willing to make a place for themselves and their family.

[sepultallica]

i dont know how this is relavant or even significant but here goes. my friend was a watch commander for the los angeles police department. he wrote more than 75% of the LAPD officer's manual. and while it wasnt the first thing that it read, it was definately on tyhe first page, "law enforcement can only work through the general cooperation of the public. when the general public no longer wants to be policed and told what to do..."

 

i believe that anarchy can only work for short peiods of time and not in densly populated regions.

[chadn]

yeah damion you are talking abuot socialism or in this case libertarian socialism, not anarchy.

 

however in the case of anarchy the reason why it wouldn't work is this.

 

imagine a society that has 2 achers(sp) of land.

 

someone wants to take an acher of land to make a big house for himself and himself alone. thats half of the entire groups land that he would control.

 

of course everyone else wouldn't like this as they need the land to grow food and everything else.

 

so the rest of the group says that him building the house would not be fair and he cant do it.

 

however at this point you know longer have an anarchy you have a central authority (the group) anarchy is impossible unless you have a single family out on an island somewhere

 

No, Damion is correct. The Anarchist belief is very idealic. It believes that the humans, left to their own devices naturally form communities in which everyone works to the good of everyone else, however government disrupts this natural order. Hence my reason for equating anarchy to anti-government communism. The hippie communes of the 60s are about as close as you get to anarchism, sure most of them failed in what they attempted, but they were carrying out the anarchist ideal. Communities of free individuals working to the betterment of each other without damaging influence of government.

 

Libertarian socialism would be a contradiction of beliefs. There is nobody more against socialist ideals than the Libertarian. Libertarians are individualists, in that they are concerned about personal freedom, economically and socialy. If people end up living in the anarchist ideal, thats fine with Libertarianism, so long as each individual chooses such a life. The Libertarian does not hold the anarchist ideal, there only ideal is the individuals freedom.