[Chainsaw]

I have read the term Anarchism both Radical and Rational. Any net references available? I might be an anarchist and want to find out for sure.----------Chainsaw

[TheeBadOne]

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

http://www.spunk.org/

http://www.anarchism.net/

http://www.radio4all.org/anarchy/

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/talks/anarchism2.html

http://www.radio4all.org/aia/

http://flag.blackened.net/

http://anarchyarchives.org/

http://www.rationalanarchism.org/

[Tamara]

Do you believe in "Mind your own business" and "Keep your hands to yourself" and think that if everybody else would just act like an adult, then the whole world would be a better place?

If so, then you're probably already one without realizing it... ;)

[nualle]

Anarchist Archives
One of my favorites. Original sources by anarchist authors, many of them (especially the earlier ones) available for free reading/downloading off the site.

http://ispp.org/Anarchist_Archives/index.html



Links on the same site to other anarchist resource sites.

http://ispp.org/dward/anarchy.html

[AmericanFreeBird]

Hmm, sounds good on the outside but how would such social problems like organized crimnals be handled (a la Al Capone)?

A local sherrif with possie?

[Tamara]

If they try to harm or coerce you in any way, you (and your friends/neighbours, if necessary) shoot them.

[DeltaElite]

LOL at Tamara.
Ah, the good ole days of personal responsibility.:cool:

[nualle]

Organized crime, which exists to supply illegal but much demanded goods, disappears in an anarchist system. In an anarchist market, no goods are illegal. Only direct harm and coercion are punishable.

[Ian]

My basic rationale for anarchy is that there are is absolutely nothing beneficial done by government that could not be done better, cheaper, and more justly by private individuals and organizations. That includes charity, war, and building roads, among other things.

[tyme]

nualle, I don't think anything is "punishable" in an anarchy. Also, economic or social protection by NAP-violating violence becomes a commodity, so I'm not sure organized crime would totally cease to exist. However, it's true that those people don't fear the CJS very much now, so it's hard to believe they would become more dangerous in anarchy where they no longer have legal recourse against revenge.

AFB, in an anarchistic society, it's doubtful that anyone would take it upon themself to punish another for killing Capone, assuming it were common knowlege he was a violent criminal. In a system with laws against revenge murder or murder based on knowledge of previous heinous crimes, an assassin has to deal with unofficial retribution from the target's minions, the criminal justice system (criminal), and official retribution from the target's lawyers (civil). In an anarchy, only the first is an issue, lowering the bar.

But there are all sorts of variations on anarchistic theory, and not many people take it seriously. Some anarchists think society would work just fine as a huge federation of tribal/city/regional groups, which presumably have meetings at the Mexican Hat in Utah to arrange management of nuclear weapons and conventional SA&L forces. Others think the CJS and law enforcement would exist mostly as corporations, and that military defense would be run by corporations as well. Others think there would be no need for military defense, that survivors of an attack would be motivated to assassinate key governmental members of the aggressor state, and that those losses would serve a function similar to retaliation by nuclear or conventional forces.

Those theories are just idle speculation about the results of anarchy. The only fundamental difference between anarchy and modern government is that in the former there would be no entity with innate authority to use force to get you to do something, certainly not based on a 215-year-old document that might as well have been shredded physically, in concept, and in practice by the government it has spawned. The social structure in anarchy depends on a variety of factors, like human nature, that the entire modern world understands hardly at all.

If the U.S. became an anarchist state tomorrow, would the non-criminal element of society behave any differently as long as the lights stayed on?

[Shootin' Buddy]

No anarchist system can exist for very long.

This is because there are always evil people who will try to pillage, plunder, and enslave the good people. The good people will not tolerate this so wars and conflicts will exist everywhere. There will be much death.

Eventually, some great leader will rise up and say, "Hey look everybody, we are getting killed here. We need to organize. Let us form a government. We can steal ten times the money from the good people through taxes that we ever got from thieving. All good people will be enslaved to the law but not one of us evil people will be affected by it. The good people will not fight a government like they fight us, so then we the evil ones will be safe." And so the evil people will organize themselves into a government and once again the good people will be subjugated.

Nope, the anarchist system can not exist for very long. :D

[Chris Rhines]

Okay, first off, there are many different types of anarchism, mostly differentated by how one thinks society would organize itself in the absence of coercive government. Most self-described anarchists here are 'market anarchists' or 'anarcho-capitalists,' who think that individuals will form profit-motivated groups in order to provide goods and services. There are 'anarcho-socialists' out there who think that individuals will organize themselves into altruistic communes and such. Many other types.

Serious anarchists are pretty rare. The black-T-shirt teenage idiots you see at Rage Against the Machine concerts and WTO protests are usually not anarchists of any kind, no matter what they proclaim. If a person advocates the existence of any kind of authority with the power to force obedience, then they ain't an anarchist.

The vast majority of anarchists think that it is immoral to initate force against another person.

Lots more information, commentary, debate, and irreverence can be found at:

www.antistate.com
www.strike-the-root.com

- Chris

[Rebeldon]

"No anarchist system can exist for very long."

That is very true! It will not take long at all before a type of Feudalism evolves.

The principles of Anarchism sound really romantic, but it ignores human nature.

[Glock Glockler]

if everybody else would just act like an adult, then the whole world would be a better place?

But not everybody does act like an adult, there lies the problem.

We've been over this ground before and I'm not going to get drawn into an extensive debate again. On this note, I'd like to challenge all proponents of anarchy, or anachro-capitalist, or whatever you want to call it, to a practical implementation of this debate.

Why don't we reduce govt from what it is now to one limited by only what the Constitution allows, and when we get to that point, after we've reduced it by 95%, then we'll start a slowly reducing some more and see how it works. I'm sure we'd be able to privatize the monetary system as well as the post office, but I don't think certain other things should be privatized, so let's see just who's wrong and who's right when we get to that point.

Anything else is just mental masturbation, and I think that our efforts would be better spent convincing fense-sitters to join the ranks of the govt-minimalists.

[4v50 Gary]

Anarchy was big at the turn of the 20th Century. No shortage of them and they were happily blowing lots of people up (on a smaller but equally frightening scale as today). Want a good read? Try Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower.

BTW, as mentioned above, anarchy doesn't work for the same reason why socialism can never be attained. They're based on the premise that man's nature is good and that he will, out of the goodness of his heart, help his fellow man. Well, for many of us this is true but we're going to make sure our families are cared for first. We'll stock our larder and before we share, we'll make sure our family need is secured. Pilgrims tried to enforce the "kommune" system and they were starving until they discarded it altogether.

Second, as mentioned earlier, greedy or evil people will overrun and dominate the sheep.

[Sindawe]

This has been an interesting thread, 'specially to one who considers himself to have strong anarchist leanings. Some good fictional tales about what an anarchist society might look like are:

The Probability Broach - by L. Neil Smith.

The American Zone - by L. Neil Smith

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-4858911-4942439

Voyage from Yesteryear - by James Patrick Hogan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671577980/qid=1042164097/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-4858911-4942439?v=glance&s=books

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress - by Robert Heinlein

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312863551/qid=1042164294/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-4858911-4942439

The last title was my introduction to the philosophy of anarchism via the character Prof. and his outlook on the world.

[Tamara]

Also, the mack daddy of practical anarchy tales, J. Neil Schulman's outstanding Alongside Night...

[Tamara]

Pilgrims tried to enforce the "kommune" system and they were starving until they discarded it altogether.

The word "kommune" is anathema to a market anarchist...

[Jim March]

My opinion is that while free-market anarchism (also called "Anarcho-Capitalism") has it's appeal, I don't think the A-C people realize how "domineering and controlling" large corporations can be.

At the founding of the US, everybody was afraid of overwhelming Federal power but they had a hard time even concieving of South Carolina banning all preachers from preaching anti-slavery from the pulpit, with a death sentence for offenders (1859) and a multitude of other civil rights violations (against all races, not just blacks) by states.

In the same way, the A-C crowd could end up putting people like Bill Gates into the same positions of power now held by Gray Davis, BaBa Boxer and such - with less oversight.

That's the main reason I prefer a strictly controlled "radical Libertarian" gov't capable of preventing or punishing "Initiation Of Force" between citizens or groups of citizens (and seeing to the national defense).

[TheeBadOne]

BTW, as mentioned above, anarchy doesn't work for the same reason why socialism can never be attained. They're based on the premise that man's nature is good and that he will, out of the goodness of his heart, help his fellow man.
Exactly

[BrianW]

I find it laughable that the statists imagine that anarchy will be less than perfect because of human nature, yet fail to find fault with governments for the same reason. Of course it would be less than perfect, it would be a creation of humans. Is the best argument against anarchy that people wouldn't play nice?

Governments, no matter how they are organized, will always become oppressive because power corrupts. It's as simple as that. I have a hard time believing that things could possibly be worse if we all lived without government; the death toll by government in the 20th century alone (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM) should plainly tell that tale. The literal mountains of dead and rivers of blood created by governments killing their own people outside of warfare is a pretty high cost for "cheap" roads and mail delivery. Add in wars, which are strictly the creation of governments, and it's starts to sound like the statists are playing devil's advocate.

As to large corporations becoming domineering in an anarchic state, well, they'd have a hard time dominating anyone without willing servants in gov't. Let's pretend that they would be a problem, wanna bet it would be less of a problem than say, gulag or the IRS?

Anarchy is not based on the premise that all people are good, kind-hearted and well-intentioned. In fact, it's based on quite the opposite: people are greedy, self-interested and violent, therefore it's best not to give them any power over their fellow man.

I heartily recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy-the God that Failed" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684/qid=1042190947/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2251042-7233520). It's as fine a scholarly look at why government does not and can not work as has been written. Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html) is another masterful work.

[Tamara]

Anarchism is based on no such thing; Gary seems to have it confused with communism.

Anarchism is not based on me helping anybody but me and whoever else I may voluntarily choose to help. It is based on me, in my own self interest, refraining from harming others, either because they are beneficial to me or because I might get shot. You know, the real reasons society works (don't tell me society works because of people's deep and abiding respect for "the law").

[nualle]

tyme, you protested:
nualle, I don't think anything is "punishable" in an anarchy. [snip]
AFB, in an anarchistic society, it's doubtful that anyone would take it upon themself to punish another for killing Capone, assuming it were common knowlege he was a violent criminal. In a system with laws against revenge murder or murder based on knowledge of previous heinous crimes, an assassin has to deal with unofficial retribution from the target's minions, the criminal justice system (criminal), and official retribution from the target's lawyers (civil). In an anarchy, only the first is an issue, lowering the bar.
When I said "punishable," I was thinking very much along the lines of the "unofficial retribution" you mentioned above. In some law systems, it's not unofficial, it's just not state-run. I'm a medievalist, so perhaps I'm drawing too heavily on older models, but I think it can be made workable.

Once someone takes an action that community consensus formally decides is so heinous as to put him beyond the pale, he loses the basic assumption of safety that existing in a society requires. Anyone can take "unofficial retribution" without fear of further official action.

I've modeled this on the medieval Icelandic system, whose flaw was that it was essentially oligarchical. A few men were able to sustain feuds (both in and out of courts of law) for extended periods of time while most people had to make patronage relationships with those few to be heard at all.

In an anarchist system, all are equal before the law. No one needs a patron to make himself heard at court. And most folks are too busy getting about the business of life to devote much energy to feuds. Those few who make feuds a way of life will likely end up self-correcting.

[Chipper]

Anarchy was around long before wild-eyed, long-haired men with molotov cocktails. The earlier definiton in this thread is correct. The entymology is quite simple. I comes from the greek word arche-which means rule or ruler and combined with the prefix an-which means without. Without rule or without ruler.

The most recent example of anarchy can be found here:
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1121&month=51&title=Medieval+Iceland+and+the+Absence+of+Government&id=52

You might have to copy and paste this URL into your browser as it produced three lines while writing this.

If you are interested in finding out more about anarchy I would highly recommend any of the works of Murray N. Rothbard. You can find his books at Amazon.com and his essays at both mises.org and LewRockwell.com. Though he is regarded by many as a libertarian his works clearly indicate anarchist leanings. Libertarian thought and anarchy are very similar except that libertarians would have some level of government where anarchists do not want any government.

Others to consider in this same vein have already been mentioned and to add to those lists I would include the writings of H.L. Mencken, Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Frederic Bastiat and Etienne de la Boetie.

Books available free on the web are:
Frederic Bastat - The Law
http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.3/the_law.html

Murray N. Rothbard- For a New Liberty (this is ch. 13, links to first)
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp

Etienne de la Boetie - A Discourse on Volntary Servitude
http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/laboetie.html

Obviously this is a highly limited (and yes, biased) selection of works. As you explore this topic you will be exposed to many, many different "flavors" of anarchy and libertarian thinking. As always it will boil down to your reasoning, beliefs and choices.

Success to you and welcome to the world of "f*^$ the government"!

Chipper

[buzz_knox]

Anarchism: a situation where the strongest dominate the weakest, and where might makes right without anything beyond voluntary restrictions on one's behavior to temper said might.

What I've always found amazing is that those who advocate anarchism are, in my experience, the ones least likely to survive or thrive under such a system. They are usually the pseuodo hippie/grunge chowderheads who theorize about how it would be without people telling them what to do, while scarfing Twinkies and popping zits. Basically, they are the people who are only alive because it's illegal to kill them. Once that restriction is removed, they'll either be killed by the first person who they tick off sufficiently or they'll become human cattle, controlled by the strongest.

There are some who purport to support anarchism that don't fall within this definition but, again, in my experience, the majority I'm personally familiar with do.

Upon further reflection, I believe these comments went a bit farther than I intended. As they are the subject of further discussion, I won't edit them. But I would acknowledge that while there are people who fall completely within this definition and to whom I was referring, painting the advocates of this theory with such a wide brush was inappropriate.

[Tamara]

See if I ever let you shoot my Professional again. ;)

I'm off to scarf Twinkies and pop zits...

[buzz_knox]

In a related thought, I also believe that what people are terming as "anarchy" is really intended just a different version of a societal compact, one in which people implicitly or explicitly agree to comply with a certain set of moral/practical guidelines. This isn't true anarchy, as there are no guidelines in such a situation.

[Tamara]

All anarchy means is "without rulers", it doesn't mean "without rules". A contract is a contract, whether enforced by the government, a private arbitration service, or independently between the concerned parties. All "anarchy" does is remove those who presume coercive powers over people who dwell in an arbitrary geographic area from the mixture.

[buzz_knox]

The Great and Wise Tamara wrote: See if I ever let you shoot my Professional again.

As I said, not everyone falls within that category based on my experience, just the majority. In fact, I had you in mind when I amended my statement, as upon reflection, I realized that the original version was not completely correct. But I do question whether what you advocate is true anarchy or not. L. Neil Smith, at least as evidenced in his book Forge of the Elders, argued in favor of a society where rules were clearly set forth as to how to operate, while allowing people the freedom to do as they will without harming others. That isn't true anarchy.

[buzz_knox]

Tam, I think our definitions differ. At least to me, true anarchy does mean without rules or restrictions, and I believe that is the common usage. I think what you are talking about is more properly defined as a laissez faire libertarian society.

[Chris Rhines]

Terms have objective definitions. If two definitions for the same term differ, one of them is wrong. In this case, buzz_knox's 'definition' of anarchy is wrong. Nothing about anarchism implies the absence of social order, mob rule, or jungle law. Simply the absence of rules imposed externally from the top down.

Best one-sentence definition of anarchy I've ever heard is, "A society of individuals, based soley upon voluntary association." That's it.

On the subject of an-cap literature, allow me to recommend Victor Koman's Kings of the High Frontier. Read it, I'm desperately in need of other people to discuss it with!

- Chris

[Soap]

Jim March- If you have a Windows OS and you wish to change, what do you do? You buy a competing product.

If you have a government that constantly infringes upon your rights, what do you do? You can endure, leave, or go to jail.

The difference, to me, is vast.

[buzz_knox]

While terms have objective definitions, those definitions may in fact vary. The New American Heritage definition of anarchy includes "absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose" which I believe encompasses the idea of lack of order or rules. Black's Law Dictionary (someone swiped my Webster's so I finally have occasion to use this thing) includes one of the characteristics of anarchy as "lawlessness or political disorder."

[buzz_knox]

If you have a government that constantly infringes upon your rights, what do you do? You can endure, leave, or go to jail.

Okay, so let's say that you get an anarchist society. What happens to those who don't agree with the common set of rules? They are either agree to abide by them (endure), get out of the area (leave), or are punished (go to jail). Or, as Tamara said, you shoot them. How is that different? You're replacing one form of government (by representatives) with another form of goverment (actual democracy). That's not the absence of government, which seems to be the definition of anarchy being offered.

[Chainsaw]

Buzz wrote;<Okay, so let's say that you get an anarchist society. What happens to those who don't agree with the common set of rules? They are either agree to abide by them (endure), get out of the area (leave), or are punished (go to jail). Or, as Tamara said, you shoot them. >End of quoted text

This for lack of better words is a simple system with only 50 cents expended to bring about the termination of behavior from miscreants that we now have in our present system who are ruining the freedoms we once had. Additonally it takes none of my money unless it is my 50 cents being used. Could this system have faults? Sure it could, but look at what we have now.

It was pointed out in one of the thread addy's posted that Janet Reno under government sanction killed more people than Ted Bundy. Bundy is in prison Reno just ran for public office.

Is our system OK or is it broken?----------Chainsaw

[buzz_knox]

Chainsaw, I agree with you completely. Our system sucks. I ought to know, as I am a small cog in the legal system itself. My point, though, is that even as people deny the existence of a social contract or move for the extermination of government in the interests of "do what you want" society, they inevitably call for the creation of a different type of social contract or government to make that society work. It's not the elimination of government at issue, but rather the replacement of the existing government with a governmental system they prefer.

As an aside, why $.50? Why not use a .22 behind the ear? Much cheaper.

[Chainsaw]

buzz, And I agree with you that this systems "sucks". The problem I have is I can't see it being fixed with our present political climate.

The majority of the citizenry are dumbed down as to what goes on, while some have figured out they can vote themselves crumbs and a slab of meat at the ballot box. Others just never vote for a candidate just against one they hate more. More programs are created to replace the ones that have failed that have failed................Where would you begin to fix this system? I don't believe that it can be done.

The only bright spot I have seen is that increasingly most don't/haven't paid attention and thus interest in Big government is waning. For government to succeed, people have to have an interest in it, and most here don't, from my point of view.----------Chainsaw

[buzz_knox]

The system can only be fixed once it's completely broken in fact or perception. In its current state, the system works at a level that most people are unhappy with but most are not completely fed up with. We still turn to the police when there's a crime and we still are shocked when the system goes haywire. Part of that is because we have been indoctrinated so much that in our core belief system, we still want it to work.

The key is to convince a sufficient number of the population (or at least a critical mass of those with power) that the system has to be fixed, that society will not function at an acceptable level without the needed overhaul. The problems are that the population is too easily lulled into believing that quick "fixes" (i.e. gun control or "three strikes" laws) are the answer, and that actual reforms are too often coopeted or neutralized by groups with interests opposed to reform (like liberal judges who believe that any punishment is cruel and unusual striking down fair laws and sentences).

[Soap]

buzz_knox- I would agree with you up to a point. I agree with your sentiment that:

"My point, though, is that even as people deny the existence of a social contract or move for the extermination of government in the interests of "do what you want" society, they inevitably call for the creation of a different type of social contract or government to make that society work."

Of course social contracts would still be present, but my point was that I don't think the government would be replaced by massive ruling corporations. Mainly because massive ruling corporations cannot endure in a true free market.

[buzz_knox]

By "massive ruling corporations", do you mean a standing body or bureaucracy, or an actual corporation? The phrase can be taken to describe either the latter or our current gov't which exists mainly to support itself.

[Soap]

I mean an actual corporation that states, "buy my product or die/jail/etc."

[bronco61]

Anarchism: a situation where the strongest dominate the weakest, and where might makes right without anything beyond voluntary restrictions on one's behavior to temper said might.

ah! So we are already living withinin an anarchist system! At least this is how we treat other countries.

Buzz_Knox - I don't think you've done much research into Anarchism. Or if you have, you might have let your preconceived bias maybe block out what was being said?

Okay, so let's say that you get an anarchist society. What happens to those who don't agree with the common set of rules? They are either agree to abide by them (endure), get out of the area (leave), or are punished (go to jail).

Well, that is what we have right now LOL. Again, are we living with an anarchist system already?

[Tamara]

The phrase can be taken to describe either the latter...

Bill Gates has, oddly enough, not yet used men in ninja costumes with submachineguns to convince me to buy his product...

[Chainsaw]

< Bill Gates has, oddly enough, not yet used men in ninja costumes with submachineguns to convince me to buy his product..>

Right on, but you have to add the McGoverninks have squeezed Gates hard enough now to extort money for their political campaigns out of him. He did pay a price for being politically unaware.----------------------Chainsaw

[Gordon]

I'll drive my rockcrawlers or ride horse or pay on toll roads. I'll put out my own fires. I'll sure as hell handle my own police business. I'll volunteer to serve the leaders who want to unconditionally win wars. I'll barter or trade for real money. Any Questions? Politicians can get a job and handouts will be handled in church and charities. :neener:

[bfoster]

Robert Paul Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism, Harper, New York, 1970 contains a fascinating linguistic analysis of key points in Rousseau's Social Contract. Considering the influence of Rousseau on the political philosophy of the founders of this Republic, this may be a book of interest to those who seek a better understanding of the origins of the constitution.

Bob

[Tamara]

Just ordered Kings of the High Frontier from Amazon. (Also, The Rainbow Cadenza and How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World.) :cool:

[Jim March]

Daniel Flory: there are numerous historical cases of private companies with no proper controls acting in a completely tyrannical fashion. The British East India Company was probably the most notorious. The various US railway companies using Chinese labor were no better, the Hudson Bay company had some very "interesting" relations with the natives, we could go on and on...good God, look at the founding of "Rhodesia" and other weird exploits of major "capitalists" with nobody able to put a check on 'em throughout Africa. Or the slave traders across Africa.

Now, I'm not at all "anti-capitalist". But I do believe there has to be a forum to enforce contract law violations and violations of the non-aggression principle. That forum has to have enough raw power behind it to enforce contract law against the likes of Bill Gates, or history has shown just what people like him are capable of.

And yes, "Raw Power" means "stemming from the barrel of a gun" as Mao put it.

The only power I trust is "we the people" backing an honest, Constitutionally limited court system.

[Soap]

Jim March,

I agree that corporate abuses are entirely possible. I would also agree that a certain set of ethics and contractual laws are required to protect all parties. But in general, it is far easier to dispose of a corporate despot than a governmental despot.

[Chris Rhines]

Tamara - I will lay fair odds that you read KotHF in one sitting, no sleep. It really is that good.

Jim - The funny thing is, all the examples of massive corporate abuse that you mention (and they were abusive, no argument there) were tied up in a nice tight relationship with the governemnt of the time. The British East India company was, for all intents and purposes, an economic arm of the Crown government, with all the privledges that entails. Same with the railroad barons, who operated under a direct mandate from then-President Lincon.

The problem with having a single arbitration system with "...enough raw power behind it to enforce contract law against the likes of Bill Gates..." is that such a system places itself above the ideals that it is supposed to defend. How can a forum defend the NAP by violating the NAP? And make no mistake, that is how it will end up if a single entity holds a monopoly of legal protection. Private law is the only possible route to lasting justice.

- Chris