CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What do you think would evolve from an anarchist society
Would there be corperate owned cities (like cities built by construction companies who offer protection as a means of selling homes)? Would there be chaos?Would there be order from people policing themselves? What do you think would evolve from it?
Anarchy is only ever a temporary state of affairs, it's chaotic nature makes it unsustainable. Those with power rise to the top to secure their position and ability to impose their will upon others.
Barbarism, or a technocracy. If one reading this seeks the logic behind the claim, feel free to trawl through my previous arguments to find one of the three in which I have previously explained it. [1]
Humans are order seeking, the formation of an anarchist society would be short lived, one could say that some of the policies of the past were in some measure anarchist, they didnt last because it was not a sufficient kind of organization in society. In the early days of the US fire crews were privately owned and one needed to pay for their homes and businesses to be protected.
The main reason why I think we have a mixed system is because of the inherent order seeking tendency of human beings, we tried some pure systems as we evolved as a civilization but have come to the combination we have arrived at because of an order seeking predisposition.
A society more like the one we have now would come into existence over time.
My belief is that, the people would lack the recources to police themselves, which in the short run would create chaos. But with people being having a lack of security (and public utilities), corperations would build cities and offer protection (and utilities). Because of this, people would move to those cities...creating an effect where cities were owned and policed by single construction companies.
Essentially supply and demand would create order from chaos. But there would be negative aspects as well, the country side would be totally unpoliced and many of the cities would probably lack fair justice systems.
Anarchy is an impossible human condition. We're social animals. Government is simply what we call the extension of the natural family units, tribes, etc. that humans originally consisted of. The idea government is anything else is dangerously incorrect, as demonstrated by so many currently convinced wrongly it is some outside, evil force instead of a tool that we ourselves are able to determine its use.
However, make-believe world where it would be possible, it would be a very low human population where any advancement would be impossible, medically, scientifically or industrially due to the cooperative nature these things demand. Lifespan would revert to our natural state, mid-thirties for those lucky enough not to contract some horrible disease earlier. All would be raised by single mothers (as family is not anarchy, it is order) for only the time instinct determined meaning a lot of dead children (as well as dead babies), rape and murder would be as likely upon human contact as anything else as the competition for resources, whether rare or plentiful, make this the most logical reaction to another person's presence.
The biggest and strongest males would rule completely in any given situation, until murdered through trickery, luck, in their sleep or when a bigger stronger male in any situation took over. Even these brutal and unfair instances of something resembling order would quickly crumble.
It would be miserable and short.
In reality few creatures on earth practice complete anarchy. Even dumb animals have social standards and pack norms, which are primitive "governments."
The same sentiment is at the root of the worst sort of theism. That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves. I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy. If your perspective were to shift to where you viewed anarchy as being synonymous with freedom (like I do) I suppose you'd stop arguing against it.
Government is simply what we call the extension of the natural family units, tribes, etc. that humans originally consisted of. The idea government is anything else is dangerously incorrect, as demonstrated by so many currently convinced wrongly it is some outside, evil force instead of a tool that we ourselves are able to determine its use.
I agree with that.
However, make-believe world where it would be possible, it would be a very low human population where any advancement would be impossible, medically, scientifically or industrially due to the cooperative nature these things demand.
Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine in the real world. It seems like you are arguing that robust cooperative associations cannot occur in the absence of a ruling class to keep everybody in line. Your claim that advancement would be impossible is based on nothing but your poorly informed hunch.
Lifespan would revert to our natural state, mid-thirties for those lucky enough not to contract some horrible disease earlier. All would be raised by single mothers (as family is not anarchy, it is order) for only the time instinct determined meaning a lot of dead children (as well as dead babies), rape and murder would be as likely upon human contact as anything else as the competition for resources, whether rare or plentiful, make this the most logical reaction to another person's presence.
Keep on arguing for the continued concentration of power by using irrational fear as your primary persuasive tool. Perhaps you can get even more people to misunderstand the concept of anarchy. Before you know it anyone who talks about freedom or liberty will be quickly dismissed as unrealistic utopian kooks too.
The biggest and strongest males would rule completely in any given situation, until murdered through trickery, luck, in their sleep or when a bigger stronger male in any situation took over. Even these brutal and unfair instances of something resembling order would quickly crumble.
Those with influence are at war with those who have power. It's clear what side you are on.
“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine
It would be miserable and short.
What experience are you basing that on?
In reality few creatures on earth practice complete anarchy. Even dumb animals have social standards and pack norms, which are primitive "governments."
Someday (I hope) governing of subjects (Rule) will be considered primitive compared to anarchic forms of government, and voluntary association will be the norm as opposed to mandatory compliance.
That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves.
The existence of Common law does not inherently necessitate hierarchical authoritarian rule.
I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy.
A state of society without government or law.
Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine
If by a small group you mean about 4 or 5, then sure in some instances it works fine, but we have roughly 300 million people in this country.
“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine
Do you insist that Thomas Paine supported Anarchy? I can assure you he most certainly didn't, and to quote him as such is dishonest.
The existence of Common law does not inherently necessitate hierarchical authoritarian rule.
Agreed. It by no means precludes it either.
A state of society without government or law.
Government can't be done away with, only changed. And laws...the ones fittingly termed as such IMO are discovered not created. They are immutable. I don't think of an anarchic society as being one without laws in the sense of societal agreements, but rather regulations imposed by way of violence or the threat thereof, on the unwilling.
If by a small group you mean about 4 or 5, then sure in some instances it works fine, but we have roughly 300 million people in this country.
Who all necessarily must be managed by a central unified governing body?
Do you insist that Thomas Paine supported Anarchy?
As I understand it yeah.
I can assure you he most certainly didn't, and to quote him as such is dishonest.
Really! Maybe he was a closet anarchist subversive. His philosophy certainly didn't fit the poorly thought out notions of it as are entertained by so many, such as possibly yourself. Shame on you being so loose with the word dishonest! :)
It doesn't need to. Your argument was against hierarchical authoritarian rule, not against government. Thus your contention is moot.
Government can't be done away with
Well it can, it just won't be pretty.
And laws...the ones fittingly termed as such IMO are discovered not created. They are immutable.
Except that they're not immutable. Laws change with great frequency, thus they aren't immutable.
Who all necessarily must be managed by a central unified governing body?
Central+Regional+Local. Yes.
As I understand it yeah. Really! Maybe he was a closet anarchist subversive.
Then you are mistaken. Thomas Paine has always advocated for small limited government. He has famously called government a necessary evil. I'm currently reading Common Sense in which he advocates for exactly that.
It doesn't need to. Your argument was against hierarchical authoritarian rule, not against government. Thus your contention is moot.
I make a distinction between "to rule" and "to govern" and anarchism as I understand it need not be against the latter but necessarily must be against the former.
Well it can, it just won't be pretty.
Self government is a form of government which cannot be done away with, unless everyone is killed, if that's what you mean.
Except that they're not immutable. Laws change with great frequency, thus they aren't immutable.
Here, I dare point out a very very common IMO misuse of the term "law". I challenge the current orthodoxy so citing authoritative references won't convince me to adjust my opinion. I don't disagree that Legislative ordinances change relatively frequently.
Central+Regional+Local. Yes.
So are you for one world government?
Then you are mistaken.
Meh, I just understand anarchy differently than you. Professed anarchists who express a desire to do away with government are as misinformed about the nature of government as their analogues in the do away with religion camp are about the nature of religion.
Thomas Paine has always advocated for small limited government. He has famously called government a necessary evil. I'm currently reading Common Sense in which he advocates for exactly that.
You presume I haven't read his works? I beat you to the punch on that. He's one of my favorites. Influenced my political outlook he did. I will do my own interpreting of what he stood for thank you very much.
The kind of anarchism YOU argue against is the poorly thought out sort. I argue against that too when I notice it.
I make a distinction between "to rule" and "to govern" and anarchism as I understand it need not be against the latter but necessarily must be against the former.
You can make whatever distinction you like but Government is a body that governs, which anarchy opposes.
Self government is a form of government which cannot be done away with, unless everyone is killed, if that's what you mean.
Here, I dare point out a very very common IMO misuse of the term "law". I challenge the current orthodoxy so citing authoritative references won't convince me to adjust my opinion.
This is a fallacious argument, you cannot make a claim and then preemptively deny evidence against it without first establishing the unreliability of said evidence. If only I could do that in every debate, I'd win every time.
"Um, the moon is bigger than Saturn, and don't bother citing anything from modern astronomy to prove me wrong the whole field is BS, you won't convince me"
"The Cretaceous period happened 4,000 years ago, and don't give me any of that crap from geologists they don't know what they're talking about."
"The word House actually means a sea-going war vessel, I challenge the current orthodoxy of established by dictionaries, citing a dictionary won't convince me."
You can deny contrary evidence all you like, but it will still be denial and you'll still be wrong.
I don't disagree that Legislative ordinances change relatively frequently.
That's more or less what a law is.
So are you for one world government?
Do I need to be? No.
Meh, I just understand anarchy differently than you.
You don't understand it differently, you understand it incorrectly. Redefining words at your convenience does not an argument make.
You presume I haven't read his works?
I sit quite confidently that you haven't, not at any length, and no quotes on the internet don't count. You thought he was an anarchist and were unaware that he advocated for small limited government. So yes I am quite sure. The very fact that he is one of the nations founders, and was the inspirational source of the makeup and structure of the government is evidence enough of this.
I will do my own interpreting of what he stood for thank you very much.
That is the problem I think. No interpretation is necessary. He stated his views very unambiguously and quite extensively so.
In speaking about why the colonies should revolt against Britain he said:
"But the Most powerful of all arguments, is, that nothing but independence, i.e. a continental form of government can keep the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil wars." ~Thomas Paine, Common Sense; pg. 28
The quote above just so happened to be on the page I was on, I can find more if you like. Throughout my reading I have found nothing which would indicate he was against government, he however was fearful of the potential for government to subjugate, but he was not an anarchist.
You can make whatever distinction you like but Government is a body that governs, which anarchy opposes.
And if you don't address the distinction between a body that governs and one that rules we can't compare our interpretations of anarchy or government.
You are equivocating.
Thanks for the link but holy crap you MUST know that I know what equivocation is as much as I play with words I regard as poorly defined.
So if I am equivocating then pray tell, which two distinct definitions did I use interchangeably in an inappropriate fashion? Go ahead reference away.
This is a fallacious argument, you cannot make a claim and then preemptively deny evidence against it without first establishing the unreliability of said evidence. If only I could do that in every debate, I'd win every time.
"Um, the moon is bigger than Saturn, and don't bother citing anything from modern astronomy to prove me wrong the whole field is BS, you won't convince me"
"The Cretaceous period happened 4,000 years ago, and don't give me any of that crap from geologists they don't know what they're talking about."
"The word House actually means a sea-going war vessel, I challenge the current orthodoxy of established by dictionaries, citing a dictionary won't convince me."
Ok fine. If you really want me to logically pick apart the definition you provide from your favorite dictionary I will. How committed are you?
That's more or less what a law is.
If you really want to hear and respond to my arguments about why I think it's a misused term I am game.
Do I need to be? No.
Well your argument for a centralized overarching government was based on there being so many (300 million) people in the US and that presumably centralized government is required for everything to be OK. If you aren't for one world government even though we have a global population of almost 7 Billion please tell me why your logic doesn't scale.
You don't understand it differently, you understand it incorrectly.
And who is the authority on that?
Redefining words at your convenience does not an argument make.
It does if I can prove I am operating with a definition that's logically sound and can show how the one in popular use isn't.
I sit quite confidently that you haven't, not at any length, and no quotes on the internet don't count.
Collecting quotes is how I discover who has written something worth reading, and I had quite a collection going that drew me to him in particular. So enjoy your tendency to be overconfident.
You thought he was an anarchist and were unaware that he advocated for small limited government.
That's not true. What I am convinced of is that you think of anarchism unrealistically like most people who shallowly consider it and have no idea of the rich intellectual traditions and thoroughly thought out political philosophies that arise from it. I'm anarchic and I advocate small limited government just like Mr. Paine.
So yes I am quite sure.
And flat out wrong.
The very fact that he is one of the nations founders, and was the inspirational source of the makeup and structure of the government is evidence enough of this.
Go understand religion and how to prepare a people for freedom and get back to me on this one.
That is the problem I think. No interpretation is necessary.
You are smarter than that.
Throughout my reading I have found nothing which would indicate he was against government
Notwithstanding that he specifically referred to it as evil, (which I agree with the underlying sentiment but logically disagree with how he articulated it) he was,like me, only against certain types of government. It's actually totally illogical to be against government in general. Thinkers know this. Anarchist ones included.
And if you don't address the distinction between a body that governs and one that rules we can't compare our interpretations of anarchy or government
It doesn't matter because anarchy is against both by definition.
Thanks for the link but holy crap you MUST know that I know what equivocation is as much as I play with words I regard as poorly defined.
No surprise there, anything that isn't consonant with your made up definitions is "poorly defined". You were still committing the fallacy, when we're speaking of government we are speaking of the social institution and the political body of governance . Self-government as it is related to the individual is referring to one's conscience and is not a political body nor a social institution. Anarchy opposes the former definition, not the latter.
Ok fine. If you really want me to logically pick apart the definition you provide from your favorite dictionary I will.
I want you to try, yes.
Law:
— n
1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other
Well your argument for a centralized overarching government
No, as I have previously explained, my argument is in favor of government which is divided into federal, regional, and local jurisdictions. You are implying that I favor a unitary form of government which is not the case.
based on there being so many (300 million) people in the US and that presumably centralized government is required for everything to be OK. If you aren't for one world government even though we have a global population of almost 7 Billion please tell me why your logic doesn't scale.
Because there are separate reasons even for non-anarchists to oppose a single world government. That is a different debate entirely. If you want to understand those reason start a debate about it, and you will find your answers.
And who is the authority on that?
The dictionary.
Collecting quotes is how I discover who has written something worth reading, and I had quite a collection going that drew me to him in particular.
So in other words, you haven't read any of his works.
I'm anarchic and I advocate small limited government just like Mr. Paine.
If you advocate for any government (large or small) then you are not an anarchist. Your whole argument thus far has been to call anti-authoritarianism anarchy, which it is not nor has it ever been.
Go understand religion and how to prepare a people for freedom and get back to me on this one.
This is a bit ironic considering Thomas Paine's views on religion.
"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religiosu wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?"
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. "
he was,like me, only against certain types of government.
Then neither you nor him are anarchists. No debate could be settled with more clarity or succinctness than that. You are arguing for something else entirely.
It doesn't matter because anarchy is against both by definition.
It's a foregone conclusion for you that the way you interpret the word cannot be improved upon or refined and you'll dismiss out of hand any argument that may challenge you to reconsider.
No surprise there, anything that isn't consonant with your made up definitions is "poorly defined".
All definitions are "made up" through dialog. Your attempt to belittle me because I recognize my own role in the process is just a disrespectful habit that if I can convince you to reevaluate, I will.
You were still committing the fallacy, when we're speaking of government we are speaking of the social institution and the political body of governance. Self-government as it is related to the individual is referring to one's conscience and is not a political body nor a social institution.
I specifically referred to them as different forms of government. Practice reading respectfully.
Anarchy opposes the former definition, not the latter.
So here you admit that anarchy is not opposed to all forms of government. Here's a little lesson for you to (as usual)dismiss without considering. Anarchy is not opposed to forms of government that are not imposed through violence and coercion.
I want you to try, yes.
Law:
— n
1. a rule or set of rules, enforceable by the courts, regulating the government of a state, the relationship between the organs of government and the subjects of the state, and the relationship or conduct of subjects towards each other
These rules consist of ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS that are interpreted by people, and an article can not do any regulating. People can regulate. Documents cannot. While were here I'll point out the use of the term subjects, and call attention to the difference between laws (as I understand them) and agreements. Laws are immutable principles that everyone is subject to. Agreements are something else entirely. The definition you provided refers to codified documented agreements which are subject to us in that we may renegotiate.
No, as I have previously explained, my argument is in favor of government which is divided into federal, regional, and local jurisdictions. You are implying that I favor a unitary form of government which is not the case.
In your opinion should local jurisdictions be subject to federal? If so you support top down hierarchal control. Not a free association of sovereign states.
That is a different debate entirely. If you want to understand those reason start a debate about it, and you will find your answers.
That's a dodge.
The dictionary.
I ask you a who question and you respond with a what. That you have given nothing but cursory consideration to these terms is becoming more and more apparent.
So in other words, you haven't read any of his works.
Dude you are being rude. You are repeatedly calling me a liar. In the interest of common decency stop. I read Thomas Paine's stuff back when I was like 24. You are being presumptuous and trying to make me look silly because I keep a collection of quotes that I find appealing. I told you in terms I am certain you understood that I did discover who he was by first reading quotes of his. I think it's a smart approach. No I don't think collecting quotes is a substitute for reading an authors complete works and I don't use it as such, unless I am not compelled by the authors eloquence. Thomas Paine was one of the few people whose writings kept my interest peaked nearly throughout. Quotes are a nice way to get a taste of the authors point of view.
If you advocate for any government (large or small) then you are not an anarchist. Your whole argument thus far has been to call anti-authoritarianism anarchy, which it is not nor has it ever been.
Anti-authoritarianism =/= anarchy
Congratulations you have just proven that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about regarding anarchism!
This is a bit ironic considering Thomas Paine's views on religion.
"Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religiosu wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from this impious thing called religion, and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man?"
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. "
You should read a little slower and pay attention to his careful use of terms.
Then neither you nor him are anarchists. No debate could be settled with more clarity or succinctness than that. You are arguing for something else entirely.
Actually I could care less if you consider my perspective to be an expression of anarchism. It's a thoroughly misleading term and I understand that.
There is a big difference between respecting and challenging someone's ideology and being rude and dismissive. I hope you learn that difference.
It's a foregone conclusion for you that the way you interpret the word cannot be improved upon or refined and you'll dismiss out of hand any argument that may challenge you to reconsider.
It isn't the way I interpret the word, it's how it is defined in the dictionary. Whenever there is a conflict over the meaning or definition of a word the dictionary is the sole authority, otherwise communication would break down into meaningless tripe and debate would be impossible. If we cannot accept something so base as the definition of the word anarchy, and we are free to personally redefine words at a whim, debate is reduced to an exchange of overly sentimental expressions and feelings. I'm sorry if this comes off as a rant, but I'm trying to stress the astute importance of a common language. Without such a common language we cannot effectively critique ideas, which is essential for any sort of progress. Your arguments only seem to support the obfuscation of language and thus a breakdown of understanding.
All definitions are "made up" through dialog. Your attempt to belittle me because I recognize my own role in the process is just a disrespectful habit that if I can convince you to reevaluate, I will.
Yes, language does change. Meanings of words do change (usually unintentionally)...over many generations, by many people. This is not quite the same as you personally redefining an -ism during an argument in which you are advocating for 'said -ism.
I specifically referred to them as different forms of government.
Except they aren't different forms of government. One is a form of government while the other is a biological process. This is why I said you were equivocating.
So here you admit that anarchy is not opposed to all forms of government.
^Read the two sentences I wrote prior to this^
Anarchy is not opposed to forms of government that are not imposed through violence and coercion.
Anarchy advocates a stateless society, by definition.
These rules consist of ARTICLES AND DOCUMENTS that are interpreted by people, and an article can not do any regulating.
Laws are immutable principles that everyone is subject to.
There never was such as thing as laws nor principals that were immutable. Principals change from culture to culture just as much as they change from time period to time period.
In your opinion should local jurisdictions be subject to federal?
Only in instances where federal is given authority in matters concerning multiple localities or regions. The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government a finite list of powers and all other powers not mentioned therein are delegated to the respective states.
That's a dodge.
You're asking a question which in itself is worthy of a whole other debate.
I ask you a who question and you respond with a what.
Your question presumed a who. My answer did not.
Dude you are being rude. You are repeatedly calling me a liar. In the interest of common decency stop. I read Thomas Paine's stuff back when I was like 24.
I'm not trying to be rude, but you have been less than straight forward with me. You asked if I thought you hadn't read any of Thomas Paine's works and my response was yes, that is exactly what I thought due to your apparent misunderstanding of what he believed. Instead of telling me I was wrong and stating which work of his you had read, your response was to tell me that you have read some of his quotes, which didn't dispute my skepticism on the matter but actually reinforced it.
Have you or have you not read one of Thomas Paine's works from beginning to end, and if so which one?
Congratulations you have just proved that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about regarding anarchism!
Is this your rebuttal? To tell me I'm wrong? Am I to take your word for it? Simply accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about is not an argument.
"Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart. Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they differ in "key dichotomies"
You should read a little slower and pay attention to his careful use of terms.
Or you could just read what he has said. Thomas Paine, was an iconoclast, he was deeply critical of religion and particularly of Christianity. His views would make some of the atheists on here look mild by comparison. His novel The Age Of Reason was almost entirely dedicated to criticizing religious beliefs. He himself was a sharp-tongued deist.
Actually I could care less if you consider my perspective to be an expression of anarchism. It's a thoroughly misleading term and I understand that.
If we are arguing against Authoritarian Governments, then I would be right there beside you to argue against it. However I recognize no matter how flawed government is, I see that it is indeed a necessary.
It isn't the way I interpret the word, it's how it is defined in the dictionary.
I challenge you to apply the "map is not the territory" analogy to what you are saying here. There are some Christians that I know who apply an identical logic in their bureaucratic stance they refer to as "sola scriptura"
Whenever there is a conflict over the meaning or definition of a word the dictionary is the sole authority, otherwise communication would break down into meaningless tripe and debate would be impossible.
Actually some people I've debated with do not have such an attachment to the imaginary authority conferred on documents and they simply make a good faith effort to understand the current usage. Legalism may be your bag but it's not everyone's
If we cannot accept something so base as the definition of the word anarchy, and we are free to personally redefine words at a whim, debate is reduced to an exchange of overly sentimental expressions and feelings.
I don't think you will always fear intellectual freedom. If your as sharp as I hope you are, eventually, intellectually you'll experience a massive connecting and relating of seemingly dissimilar concepts. It'll be euphoric for you. Lateral thinking will no longer be such a challenge. It will be as if a dam had burst.
I'm sorry if this comes off as a rant, but I'm trying to stress the astute importance of a common language. Without such a common language we cannot effectively critique ideas, which is essential for any sort of progress.
Sorry bud but even despite the emergence of internet dictionaries, defining terms will remain a prerequisite to in depth progressive discussions.
Your arguments only seem to support the obfuscation of language and thus a breakdown of understanding.
That's how they seem to you now. Later you may esteem them differently.
This is not quite the same as you personally redefining an -ism during an argument in which you are advocating for 'said -ism.
Accuse me of revisionism and I'll plead guilty. If I accused you of dismissivism, well you'd probably dismiss it since you can't find it in your favorite dictionary.
Except they aren't different forms of government. One is a form of government while the other is a biological process. This is why I said you were equivocating.
Oops! They're both biological processes, unless you know some non-living beings that make use of government.
^Read the two sentences I wrote prior to this^
Ok I did (again). Oh dear we might expose the person who isn't applying sound logic if we keep at this. :)
Anarchy advocates a stateless society, by definition.
And you think every anarchist thinker is unaware that a stateless society is impossible. time for you to update your assumptions.
The Map is not the Territory, my friend.
Been hip to that for awhile. Care to explain where the territory of law is, if it's not on paper. Careful now, try not give the slightest bit of merit to anything I've said so far.
There never was such as thing as laws nor principals that were immutable. Principals change from culture to culture just as much as they change from time period to time period.
I did not use the word pricipal. Reality behaves in predictable ways based on unchanging laws and principles that we have yet to perfectly articulate. That's my unsupported assertion in response to yours.
Only in instances where federal is given authority in matters concerning multiple localities or regions.
That's circular logic
You're asking a question which in itself is worthy of a whole other debate.
I'll regard it as a dodge until you createdebate :)
Your question presumed a who. My answer did not.
Oh that's right you think it's logical to regard a document as an authority. No interpretation necessary.
Is this your rebuttal? To tell me I'm wrong? Am I to take your word for it?
A bare bones assertion in response to another. Turn about is fair play.
you have been less than straight forward with me.
I have not.
Instead of telling me I was wrong
I told you you were wrong.
and stating which work of his you had read
As if listing titles would prove I had read anything. Besides I can't immediately recall every title. Proving what I've read to someone who is being a presumptuous ass in the first place isn't important to me.
Have you or have you not read one of Thomas Paine's works from beginning to end, and if so which one?
I have read everything project Gutenburg has from him.
If we are arguing against Authoritarian Governments, then I would be right there beside you to argue against it.
We are. You are. :) Now I want to talk about bureaucracy and see what you think it is.
I challenge you to apply the "map is not the territory" analogy to what you are saying here.
Just as a map may be a very accurate representation of a territory, a dictionary may be an accurate representation of a word's meaning.
I don't think you will always fear intellectual freedom. If your as sharp as I hope you are, eventually, intellectually you'll experience a massive connecting and relating of seemingly dissimilar concepts.
I appreciate the compliment, but as with actual freedom intellectual freedom cannot be totally free, it still must adhere to some very basic logical rules. Someone once said that it is good to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.
Sorry bud but even despite the emergence of internet dictionaries, defining terms will remain a prerequisite to in depth progressive discussions
Well, typically in a debate defining your terms happens at the onset of a debate, so there is mutual understanding.
Accuse me of revisionism and I'll plead guilty. If I accused you of dismissivism, well you'd probably dismiss it since you can't find it in your favorite dictionary.
I have been dismissing what you have said, and for what I think is good reason.
Oops! They're both biological processes, unless you know some non-living beings that make use of government.
Self-government is one's personal conscience, actual government is a social institution. Why do you insist upon trying to throw them under the same label?
And you think every anarchist thinker is unaware that a stateless society is impossible.
For the most part, yes. I'm sure there are a few that simply label their beliefs as being "anarchist" when it's something similar but different.
Care to explain where the territory of law is, if it's not on paper.
It's an abstraction, it's not really anywhere except in the minds of people. Take marriage for instance, it is an abstraction it is a social construction, although it is represented with a marriage certificate, the certificate isn't the marriage. The same is true with law, it is an abstraction. Law is a social construction. The legal documents may define the boundaries of a law in a similar way that a map defines the boundaries of a territory, but the documents aren't the law itself.
I did not use the word pricipal.
ATYPICAN: "Laws are immutable principles that everyone is subject to." 13 hrs ago
Reality behaves in predictable ways based on unchanging laws and principles that we have yet to perfectly articulate.
If we are talking about physical natural laws, then yes. If we are talking about human laws then no.
That's circular logic
How so?
I'll regard it as a dodge until you createdebate :)
Oh that's right you think it's logical to regard a document as an authority. No interpretation necessary.
When it has been constructed for that purpose and agreed upon as such, the yes. There is a little interpretation required, sure.
As if listing titles would prove I had read anything.
I wasn't really asking nor expecting you to prove anything. I was expecting you to contradict me with an example with a book of his that you read, when you said that you have read his quotes that wasn't a contradiction. It is possible to read a person's quotes and to not have read their books or essays. The lack of contradiction reinforced my skepticism. I wasn't so much calling you a liar but interpreting the meaning behind what you had said.
I have read everything project Gutenburg has from him.
It's not quite as concrete as I was hoping, but fair enough.
We are. You are. :) Now I want to talk about bureaucracy and see what you think it is.
The bureaucracy from the way I understand it, is the extensive use of specific criteria to give similar outcomes to similar cases. For example, Unemployment benefits aren't decided on a case by case basis, but rather are determined by a set of criteria that if the applicant meets will receive his or her benefits. There are advantages and disadvantages of this.
Just as a map may be a very accurate representation of a territory, a dictionary may be an accurate representation of a word's meaning.
So I will concede here that the dictionary definition does rather accurately represent what I consider to be a popular misconception. But I will respect your decision to dismiss my opinion.
as with actual freedom intellectual freedom cannot be totally free, it still must adhere to some very basic logical rules.
I agree.
Well, typically in a debate defining your terms happens at the onset of a debate, so there is mutual understanding.
That hasn't been my experience. From what I've seen most people are content to talk right past each other.
I have been dismissing what you have said, and for what I think is good reason.
For some reason or another I'm not inclined to press further here
Self-government is one's personal conscience, actual government is a social institution. Why do you insist upon trying to throw them under the same label?
Oh I just think of government as "that which governs human behavior" which includes both individual and collective forms.
I'm sure there are a few that simply label their beliefs as being "anarchist" when it's something similar but different.
I will relent trying to convince you to reconsider do to your reasoned disinterest.
[It's an abstraction], it's not really anywhere except in the minds of people. Take marriage for instance, [it is an abstraction] it is a social construction, although it is represented with a marriage certificate, the certificate isn't the marriage. The same is true with law, [it is an abstraction]. Law is a social construction. The legal documents may define the boundaries of a law in a similar way that a map defines the boundaries of a territory, but the documents aren't the law itself.
I'll call to attention the logic you presented in an earlier, perhaps seemingly unrelated debate you had with me, regarding whether or not something that exists only as an abstraction ("abstraction" wasn't the precise term used however) truly exists or not? Not at all assuming my opinion of you is important to you, but if you can make the connection and comment I'll be floored.
Reality behaves in predictable ways based on unchanging laws and principles that we have yet to perfectly articulate.
If we are talking about physical natural laws, then yes. If we are talking about human laws then no.
~snicker~
How so?
circular logic says: "They should only be given an authoritative position when they are given an authoritative position"
There is a little interpretation required, sure.
a smidgen :)
The bureaucracy from the way I understand it, is the extensive use of specific criteria to give similar outcomes to similar cases. For example, Unemployment benefits aren't decided on a case by case basis, but rather are determined by a set of criteria that if the applicant meets will receive his or her benefits. There are advantages and disadvantages of this.
Hmm, nothing stands out as particularly objectionable or provocative. I'd offer my perspective but only if asked. Thanks Bohemian.
So I will concede here that the dictionary definition does rather accurately represent what I consider to be a popular misconception. But I will respect your decision to dismiss my opinion.
Okay then.
That hasn't been my experience. From what I've seen most people are content to talk right past each other.
In formal debate that is what is to happen to prevent people from talking past each other. If you know you are using a word different from it's dictionary meaning then you should define it beforehand, just recognize that once you do that you are no longer arguing the word but your new definition of it.
Oh I just think of government as "that which governs human behavior" which includes both individual and collective forms.
Well, "that which governs human behavior" could be a lot of things, and in this particular instance it is. Anarchy isn't opposed to "that which governs human behavior" it is opposed to the social and legal body of government, and to use the word interchangeably is an equivocation.
I'll call to attention the logic you presented in an earlier, perhaps seemingly unrelated debate you had with me, regarding whether or not something that exists only as an abstraction ("abstraction" wasn't the precise term used however) truly exists or not? Not at all assuming my opinion of you is important to you, but if you can make the connection and comment I'll be floored.
Your comparing apples to triangles.
I can only assume you're talking about your God debate. The difference being that nobody is saying that law is an actual physical or metaphysical being. Almost everybody recognizes the fact that Law doesn't physically exist, but for theists that isn't the case.
circular logic says: "They should only be given an authoritative position when they are given an authoritative position"
Your question was 'Should the Federal Government have authority over Local jurisdictions' and my response was 'Only in matters involving multiple localities'. In other words my response was "Yes, under certain circumstances". So I fail to see how that in any way mirrors what you have said there.
Circular logic ("Begging the Question") really only applies in a WHY question. I never stated why that was the case, and you never asked. You only asked if it SHOULD and I gave you an answer.
Hmm, nothing stands out as particularly objectionable or provocative. I'd offer my perspective but only if asked. Thanks Bohemian.
Bureaucracy often gets a bad rap, nobody ever says anything good about it, but it can be useful under certain situations. If we rely too heavily on it, then yes it can also be bad.
And by all means what is your perspective on bureaucracy ?
If you know you are using a word different from it's dictionary meaning then you should define it beforehand
I was upfront with that I was using the word as I understood it. This whole debate never got past the defining terms stage because of your defense of what you consider an orthodox interpretation.
Anarchy isn't opposed to "that which governs human behavior" it is opposed to the social and legal body of government
That anarchy cannot logically be opposed to all forms of government is what I was hoping to get you to concede to.
to use the word interchangeably is an equivocation.
But I didn't. I was clearly distinguishing different forms of government.
Your comparing apples to triangles.
I am comparing abstract authoritative concepts
I can only assume you're talking about your God debate.
Well yours actually but...Bravo!
The difference being that nobody is saying that law is an actual physical or metaphysical being. Almost everybody recognizes the fact that Law doesn't physically exist, but for theists that isn't the case.
Unless you want to talk about the distinction you recognize between the supposed metaphysical and and the physical (which I don't really want to here) let's just talk in terms of reality.
No one disagrees that Laws really exist. Even though when we are talking about laws we are only referring to shared mental abstractions that govern human behavior
You disagree that gods really exist even though you (and correct me if I'm wrong) admit that when people talk about god they are actually referring to shared mental abstractions that govern human behavior.
from that debate
Bohemian: Is what you are imagining the subject of your imagination? Yes. Are the subjects of imagination always existent? No.
Maybe if you can now notice how illogical it is to state that someone can imagine something without imagining something...Maybe you'll be ready for this? Atheism is a form of anarchism. Nah, you're probably not ready to make that jump yet. :)
Your question was 'Should the Federal Government have authority over Local jurisdictions' and my response was 'Only in matters involving multiple localities'.
Of course it's the very nature of federalism to deal only in matters involving multiple localities. So your circular reasoning is of the tautological sort
In other words my response was "Yes, under certain circumstances". So I fail to see how that in any way mirrors what you have said there.
It's ok just take it into consideration a bit longer you'll get it. :)
Circular logic ("Begging the Question") really only applies in a WHY question. I never stated why that was the case, and you never asked. You only asked if it SHOULD and I gave you an answer.
Why should federalism not expand to globalism? AKA if you don't think it should WHY? it does involve multiple localities which is the circular reasoning you gave.
Bureaucracy often gets a bad rap, nobody ever says anything good about it, but it can be useful under certain situations. If we rely too heavily on it, then yes it can also be bad.
And by all means what is your perspective on bureaucracy ?
Well since like you, I agree that the bureaucratic approach is very useful, and of course not entirely without merit, I suppose bureaucratism is what I was really wanting to get at. (We add the ism you know when a useful concept is taken to an unhealthy extreme) IT is like excessive trust (worship) in whats written or codified. Like how I see you as doing with dictionaries :p
I don't have time to dispute this all, but a few key points here:
That anarchy cannot logically be opposed to all forms of government
You are still equivocating. One's personal Conscience isn't a form of government, it isn't a social institution, and it's not a legal body that governs. It has no laws. It has no branches of government. You are using different senses of the same word interchangeably. You are equivocating. I don't know how much clearer this must be, before you accept this.
As a real physical or metaphysical being, yes. No one is saying Law exists outside of the human mind, theists ARE saying that God exists outside of the Human mind. Therefore it's not the same thing. I did not disagree that God exists only in people's minds.
Of course it's the very nature of federalism to deal only in matters involving multiple localities. So your circular reasoning is of the tautological sort
First of all a tautology and circular reasoning are two different things.
Second of all, I don't think you understand what is being said.
"Matters involving multiple localities" I am talking about things like national defense, printing of money, constitutional matters or disputes between various states/regions whatever. If a state or a local government says "We're gonna stop using the dollar and start using the Yen, then yes the Federal Government should and does have the authority to go in and say "You can't do that". However the Federal government doesn't have any authority on how much property tax a local government enforces, whether or not a stop sign is put up, whether or not a school is built etc...
So there are certain things the federal or even state governments don't have authority over, this is what I was trying to convey. Authority is divided by jurisdiction.
It's ok just take it into consideration a bit longer you'll get it. :)
You insult my intelligence. I am well aware of what circular reasoning is, and I am well versed in the various fallacies as well as several that probably you don't even know. Circular reasoning is committed when the conclusion is used in the premise.
X is true because Y is true
Y is true because X is true
To simply state that something SHOULD be the case, cannot be circular reasoning unless it posits causality. My statement did not posit causality.
Why should federalism not expand to globalism?
You have already asked that question, and that was not the question you asked when you accused me of circular reasoning.
You asked me if The federal Government should have authority over local.
I essentially said "Yes, under certain conditions"
^How the hell is that circular reasoning? You are grasping at straws.
That people cannot function in a healthy manner without a master to be subordinate to, or some form of institutionalized hierarchal rule, is the argument of tyrants and slaves. I suppose it does depend on how you are interpreting the word anarchy. If your perspective were to shift to where you viewed anarchy as being synonymous with freedom (like I do) I suppose you'd stop arguing against it.
A master is inaccurate. Agreed rules of behavior neither implies a master nor subordinates to any individual or entity other than agreed law. Western society is based on this model. The anarchic argument against current government is not arguing against reality, they are arguing against some perceived "master" which is not our collective agreement of standards of society. This is one of the many reasons this idea is dangerous. In this twisting of reality to discount our collective say in our own government anarchists are unknowingly embracing a system which would inevitably lead to a "master" everyone is subordinate to, whether a totalitarian regime to replace our collective say in government, or the anarchy ideal version I say is impossible, one where in any given situation the biggest and strongest are the "master" and this simply shifts based on the situation and who is there.
I'll take an agreed standard of behavior that protects the extent of freedoms possible in any society, without wishfully hoping should law cease everyone would be so benevolent as to allow the society you are imagining possible.
Actually small group interaction proves that anarchic relationships work just fine in the real world. It seems like you are arguing that robust cooperative associations cannot occur in the absence of a ruling class to keep everybody in line. Your claim that advancement would be impossible is based on nothing but your poorly informed hunch.
Again, what is this "ruling class" you speak of? You have an equal say in this government we have now. You are arguing against something which does not exist. Democracy and Representative Republic and others are robust cooperative associations, and the most successful in history. You would tare that down based on hope none would take advantage of the absence of agreed accepted behavior. This is not a realistic view of human behavior.
Keep on arguing for the continued concentration of power by using irrational fear as your primary persuasive tool. Perhaps you can get even more people to misunderstand the concept of anarchy. Before you know it anyone who talks about freedom or liberty will be quickly dismissed as unrealistic utopian kooks too.
Come now, surely you took civics and have practiced your right to vote at least once...
Those with influence are at war with those who have power. It's clear what side you are on.
lmao. wow. Those with power are the ones with influence. Society based on law instead of heritage, money, power, etc. is how these powers are balanced. Society based on law by definition is not anarchy. Remove law and there is nothing left to balance power and influence. Anarchy plays into the hands of those few with the most, not the other way around.
“The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.” ~ Thomas Paine
So says a founder of this country, and on which basis much of this government was designed. The design of a government where all have a say is the result of "a general association" for the "common interest." Without this, you are not doing anything new or novel, you are reseting from where this country started, and others. Perhaps this results in another democracy or representative republic, more times than not we see in human history it results in something much worse. Civilization cannot maintain (comparative) fairness in the distribution of power and opportunity without laws ensuring these things.
What experience are you basing that on?
Cave men--which is the closest thing to anarchy in history, though not anarchy.
Someday (I hope) governing of subjects (Rule) will be considered primitive compared to anarchic forms of government, and voluntary association will be the norm as opposed to mandatory compliance.
Someday I hope people are not so quick to throw away the result of communal progress of government spanning hundreds of thousands of years because they see dark shadows pulling invisible puppet strings in a government where in reality, they already do have all the power any human has ever had in history.
A master is inaccurate. Agreed rules of behavior neither implies a master nor subordinates to any individual or entity other than agreed law.
So what is the process in place to assure citizens are voluntary participants? I don't remember going through a checklist of laws that I agreed to be subject to before I was MADE legally subject to them. I can be taken from my home and kidnapped in short order for violation of unjust laws that I never agreed to.
Western society is based on this model.
Plenty of organizations are based on an admirable model and end up adhering to a perversion of it. I would argue that this is the case. A return to the constitutional model would at this point be a radical change from business as usual.
The anarchic argument against current government is not arguing against reality, they are arguing against some perceived "master" which is not our collective agreement of standards of society.
You can't be born into an agreement, but we are born subject to unjust laws. Plenty of which upon the violation thereof result in a citizens loss of the right to vote.
This is one of the many reasons this idea is dangerous.
The idea of freedom is dangerous.
In this twisting of reality to discount our collective say in our own government anarchists are unknowingly embracing a system which would inevitably lead to a "master" everyone is subordinate to, whether a totalitarian regime to replace our collective say in government, or the anarchy ideal version I say is impossible, one where in any given situation the biggest and strongest are the "master" and this simply shifts based on the situation and who is there.
The idea that we can create a bureaucracy that will somehow prevent the stronger from having their way despite the wishes of the weaker is more than twisting reality, it's ignoring it. The reality up to this point in history is that whoever commands the most powerful army makes the rules. Armies are not about the business of coming to agreements, they are about forcing submission.
I'll take an agreed standard of behavior that protects the extent of freedoms possible in any society, without wishfully hoping should law cease everyone would be so benevolent as to allow the society you are imagining possible.
Agreements do not come at the end of gun. A system of agreements is one thing, a system of laws is another. An government based on agreements REQUIRES the consent of the governed, which our system does not.
Again, what is this "ruling class" you speak of?
People who represent only a portion of the population. The elect.
You have an equal say in this government we have now.
No I don't. I'm not legally entitled to vote. I do however have the privilege of paying taxes for a whole bunch of government spending that I vehemently DISAGREE with.
Democracy and Representative Republic and others are robust cooperative associations
In theory
and the most successful in history.
successful at what, and how do you know that the successes you attribute to what were ostensibly representative forms of government did not occur in spite of the limitations imposed by them.
You would tare that down based on hope none would take advantage of the absence of agreed accepted behavior. This is not a realistic view of human behavior.
I don't advocate tearing down any institutions. And I am not the unrealistic type who dreams of doing away with government. I do dream of governmental systems continuing their evolution to be more and more concerned with the consent and participation of the governed. I am realistic enough not to pretend everyone has an equal say.
Come now, surely you took civics and have practiced your right to vote at least once...
Come on now, it's those who are experts at appealing to the lowest common denominator that get the most votes. You don't learn that in civics class.
lmao. wow.
dammit and I was hoping to elicit nuance of thought. :)
Those with power are the ones with influence.
Ok a little help. There's a difference between coercion and persuasion. There's a difference between an agreement and a law.
Society based on law instead of heritage, money, power, etc. is how these powers are balanced.
LMAO You are brimming with faith in a corrupt system.
Society based on law by definition is not anarchy.
depends on which definition you make yourself subject to.
Remove law and there is nothing left to balance power and influence. Anarchy plays into the hands of those few with the most, not the other way around.
Reality plays into the hands of those few with the most. Immutable laws ensure that!
Without this, you are not doing anything new or novel, you are reseting from where this country started, and others.
What would cause you to be in favor of such a reset?
Civilization cannot maintain (comparative) fairness in the distribution of power and opportunity without laws ensuring these things.
It's not the laws that ensure these things, it's respectful habits. Those who don't respect the rights of others will find ways around the laws. Violation of people's rights is legal for lots of people in law enforcement.
in reality, they already do have all the power any human has ever had in history.
So what is the process in place to assure citizens are voluntary participants? I don't remember going through a checklist of laws that I agreed to be subject to before I was MADE legally subject to them. I can be taken from my home and kidnapped in short order for violation of unjust laws that I never agreed to.
Psh. Okay. You want laws, but just the laws you want. Should everyone just have there own laws? Perhaps mine say I can kill someone, and if you say "no stop, that's not right" I'll reply "I never agreed murder should be wrong!"
Blah, I'm bored of this. You are mostly arguing strawmen here. Typical of this anarchist view. Instead of tearing the whole thing down in a fit of selfish misunderstanding, why not find these laws you do not agree with, and like a responsible member of society try to change those ones. Maybe most will agree and you'll do some good. There are certainly plenty of improvements that could be made... unfortunately from most of this logic I'd imagine your complaints are not very focused, likely imaginary in large part.
Next time you aren't interested in having the conversation deepen just don't respond.
why not find these laws you do not agree with, and like a responsible member of society try to change those ones.
Ideas take root through discussion. Here I am discussing things with a disinterested, disrespectful opponent. I get the "Move on! No worthwhile discussion to be had here." message loud and clear. So I'll refrain from responding to what's in bold below as I normally would.
There are certainly plenty of improvements that could be made... unfortunately from most of this logic I'd imagine your complaints are not very focused, likely imaginary in large part.
It's not that I'm disinterested (referring to my short reply above and your comment below it) it's that I've answered all of these points previously. I don't think you are presenting a realistic version of the current government. Here, I'll go into more detail:
Plenty of organizations are based on an admirable model and end up adhering to a perversion of it. I would argue that this is the case. A return to the constitutional model would at this point be a radical change from business as usual.
In reality, very little has changed in the way of following the constitution's intent other than what is essential due to things like 300+ million population, technologies, a more complex world market, etc. You cannot possibly expect something written over 200 years ago to fairly dictate laws today unless it were written by some time traveler.
You can't be born into an agreement, but we are born subject to unjust laws. Plenty of which upon the violation thereof result in a citizens loss of the right to vote.
No set of laws in history has been perfect, and there are always cases of bad laws and injustices. I would not be willing to throw what we have away because of a few problems. It is better to fix them. It's like you have one of the most dependable, fairest and efficient vehicles in history, and you want to take it to the junkyard because it needs new spark plugs and a fan belt.
The idea of freedom is dangerous.
Now this is an annoying habit people have when arguing ideas that are not concrete. You took a piece of what I said this is one of the many reasons this idea is dangerous and took out the part where I explain how so. You than create a strawman, referring to your idea as freedom and presenting it in such a way as if I were arguing against freedom. I'm not though. My argument is your ideal would lead to less freedom with less justice almost inevitably. You don't offer a blueprint for how your idea would work. None who argue your point ever do from my observation. You only tear down what is in place, as if the U.S. has not been the most successful country in history. You are not arguing from an intellectually honest position in this regard.
The idea that we can create a bureaucracy that will somehow prevent the stronger from having their way despite the wishes of the weaker is more than twisting reality, it's ignoring it. The reality up to this point in history is that whoever commands the most powerful army makes the rules. Armies are not about the business of coming to agreements, they are about forcing submission.
This is demonstrably untrue once again. Today, in democracies and representative republics around the world, the week and those born with less means are more masters of their own destiny than ever in history. Laws have been made, through albeit often slow bureaucracies, which have empowered the many relative to history. It's not perfect, and it could be better. But a better system has not been invented and it is becoming more fair, not less so, over time.
Agreements do not come at the end of gun. A system of agreements is one thing, a system of laws is another. An government based on agreements REQUIRES the consent of the governed, which our system does not.
Laws and agreements are the same thing, and you have as much say as anyone else in what those laws are. Do you imagine in some alternative government you would have more say than you do now? If this were the impossible and incorrectly defined anarchy you imagine, you would now be arguing no doubt against those "agreements" and begrudging your lack of freedoms equally because in any instance where you have this many people, you are not going to agree with majority law (or majority agreement) in every instance. You cannot have people functioning under different sets of rules therefore you will never be happy... unless you start a cult or something.
You would do better to find the specific things you do not like and try to change them, that's part of the freedom we do have, whether you want to admit it or not, meanwhile though, you should try to appreciate how far civilization has come and realize that it would not be possible should everyone have their own set of rules they follow at whim.
People who represent only a portion of the population. The elect.
Ah, so the people in power are there because they were elected. And should more people vote it would more accurately represent everyone. That sounds like the fairest system devised by mankind. Do you have a better one?
No I don't. I'm not legally entitled to vote. I do however have the privilege of paying taxes for a whole bunch of government spending that I vehemently DISAGREE with.
Everyone pays taxes they don't agree with. I don't agree with a lot of things. However, again, in order to function as a society individuals need to compromise their own wants for what the whole wants. Sometimes it is unfair. In these instances where it is unfair we have the right to petition, protest, write angry letters, start movements, etc. This is not a common thing in human history. So, you're unhappy with some spending. Me too. I like having roads, schools, a military, police, firemen, emt's and all of the other luxuries, not to mention the opportunities of a society more than I dislike for instance, thinking some of my taxes went to the Iraq war, or to make up for corporate loopholes. But, that is the price of living in a society. It would be so no matter what sort of society, the difference being perhaps you would not be so free to communicate your dissatisfaction with it. Something should be done about the things you disagree with. What is the question though. Painting in broad strokes the portrait of an evil empire government that is holding you down against you will does nothing to right a specific wrong, and only makes you look a bit delusional to most.
successful at what, and how do you know that the successes you attribute to what were ostensibly representative forms of government did not occur in spite of the limitations imposed by them.
Successful at giving the most people the most opportunity compared to any government system in history. And I know this did not occur in spite of agreed upon forms of representative governments because for thousands and thousands and thousands of years we had no systems which were as fair for the majority.
I don't advocate tearing down any institutions. And I am not the unrealistic type who dreams of doing away with government. I do dream of governmental systems continuing their evolution to be more and more concerned with the consent and participation of the governed. I am realistic enough not to pretend everyone has an equal say.
Which is best done through some form of representation or democracy. Part of the problem is, you do not seem to advocate anything. It is very easy to point out the flaws in even the best ideas when you have none of your own to present. What is it then you imagine society should look like?
Come on now, it's those who are experts at appealing to the lowest common denominator that get the most votes. You don't learn that in civics class.
I did not learn that in civics in fact. Sometimes elections are won through fear, sometimes hope, sometimes fiscal sense, sometimes fiscal insanity. In all of it though, you have a choice. But imagining every person to run or be elected to any office is a cartoon caricature of a villain is juvenile. Some are corrupt, some are good, some you agree with, some you disagree with. All have one thing in common though, they were not born to the position nor did they take it by force, people chose them to represent. This is a good thing, even if the people are wrong about who they choose sometimes.
Reality plays into the hands of those few with the most. Immutable laws ensure that!
What I said was "Remove law and there is nothing left to balance power and influence. Anarchy plays into the hands of those few with the most, not the other way around."
You replied with nothing. Sure, reality more times than not dictates even in a democracy or representative republic, those with the most still have more power. This is curbed to the greatest extent in human history with these types of governments and you've proposed nothing better, only pointed out flaws without solutions.
It's not the laws that ensure these things, it's respectful habits. Those who don't respect the rights of others will find ways around the laws. Violation of people's rights is legal for lots of people in law enforcement.
You were replying here to my statement that laws ensure fair distribution of power and opportunity. You replied that some cops are corrupt? Okay, but it does not take away from the validity of my argument. Respectful habits ensure nothing without a means of enforcement and agreed standards of what these "respectful habits" would be.
I would be more interested in your solutions than one liners about law vs agreement and law vs respectful habits. This changes in terminology would not in any way change human behavior. A vague sense of what you think would work better, without specifics, I can assure you will not work better when tried on 300+ million people in this complex a society.
very little has changed in the way of following the constitution's intent other than what is essential
So what essential things regarding following the constitution do you see as having changed?
You cannot possibly expect something written over 200 years ago to fairly dictate laws today unless it were written by some time traveler
I expect that there are timeless principles that can be articulated in such a fashion as to remain perpetually relevant. Such articulations can be refined and honored while remaining true to the purpose of expanding liberty and administering justice.
I would not be willing to throw what we have away because of a few problems. It is better to fix them. It's like you have one of the most dependable, fairest and efficient vehicles in history, and you want to take it to the junkyard because it needs new spark plugs and a fan belt.
As I see it this is the essence of conservatism. Where did you get the idea that I was advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak?
You took a piece of what I said this is one of the many reasons this idea is dangerous and took out the part where I explain how so. You than create a strawman, referring to your idea as freedom and presenting it in such a way as if I were arguing against freedom. I'm not though.
You know what? You are right. That was a cheap shot. Upon reconsideration I would prefer to talk about whether or not our current system of government remains as it was intended to be. On a path of continual improvement regarding the aim of government being a force that advances and protects citizens rights impartially. If it's not your opinion that we are only advancing, what ways do you think we are perhaps regressing?
My argument is your ideal would lead to less freedom with less justice almost inevitably. You don't offer a blueprint for how your idea would work. None who argue your point ever do from my observation.
If you are admitting that I haven't presented an alternative, then how can you talk about what my ideal would lead to. Pointing out that I haven't presented an alternative is fair at this point. Expressing prejudice is not.
You only tear down what is in place, as if the U.S. has not been the most successful country in history
You argue against strawmen too if you aren't careful. Are you arguing against me or your anarchist stereotype? My philosophy is one of modification, not demolition. I don't much like rhetoric that refers to this US government being the most successful in history. After all, if it's true, therein lies the potential for us to be the biggest failure as well, and depending on what metrics you use to measure success I'm sure there are societies that would humble us if respectfully considered.
You are not arguing from an intellectually honest position in this regard.
To presume dishonesty is a nasty habit you should check.
This is demonstrably untrue once again. Today, in democracies and representative republics around the world, the week and those born with less means are more masters of their own destiny than ever in history. Laws have been made, through albeit often slow bureaucracies, which have empowered the many relative to history. It's not perfect, and it could be better. But a better system has not been invented and it is becoming more fair, not less so, over time.
Your argument is nothing more than a bare bones denial and doesn't demonstrate anything other than that you disagree. How do you suppose it can be identified when we've gone off course as I (apparently unlike you) believe we have?
Laws and agreements are the same thing
I suspect you and I have an underlying agreement here that might be hidden by semantic idiosyncrasies. I think it's improper to refer to an agreement as a law because people are subject to laws and party to agreements.
you have as much say as anyone else in what those laws are.
That would make a nice child debate to this discussion
Do you imagine in some alternative government you would have more say than you do now?
Sure. I also imagine this government could evolve to allow for greater meaningful citizen participation.
If this were the impossible and incorrectly defined anarchy you imagine, you would now be arguing no doubt against those "agreements" and begrudging your lack of freedoms equally because in any instance where you have this many people, you are not going to agree with majority law (or majority agreement) in every instance.
Perhaps you miss your own concession that an incorrectly defined anarchy refers to impossible scenario. I don't need to agree with the majority in every instance or even in a majority of instances. But there are some few important things that I cannot remain silent in my dissent about, and "things could be worse" think isn't comforting regarding those.
You cannot have people functioning under different sets of rules therefore you will never be happy... unless you start a cult or something.
Everyone has their own standards of what they will be happy with. Are you satisfied with the status quo? If I can play a part in popularizing in depth discussion about important things, I could effect the culture without starting a cult.
You would do better to find the specific things you do not like and try to change them, that's part of the freedom we do have, whether you want to admit it or not, meanwhile though, you should try to appreciate how far civilization has come and realize that it would not be possible should everyone have their own set of rules they follow at whim.
That's good advice
Ah, so the people in power are there because they were elected. And should more people vote it would more accurately represent everyone. That sounds like the fairest system devised by mankind. Do you have a better one?
I have ideas about how the system could be improved. Don't you?
the difference being perhaps you would not be so free to communicate your dissatisfaction with it.
It's a fragile legal entitlement, and requires diligence rather than complacency if our hope for it's strengthening and expansion is not to be in vain.
What is the question though.
Do you agree that the liberties we've fought so hard to attain are valued enough by enough people for us to reasonably expect them to remain intact, and dare I say even expand? Or does increased population necessitate the increasing loss of liberty?
Painting in broad strokes the portrait of an evil empire government that is holding you down against you will does nothing to right a specific wrong, and only makes you look a bit delusional to most.
I don't intend to do that. Can you give me an example of something I've typed that you see as likely to give that impression. I understand that it displays an imbalance if one is able to go on and on about what they are against but have not much to say about what they support. And though I may at times focus on the former I am most certainly capable of talking about the latter.
Successful at giving the most people the most opportunity compared to any government system in history.
Government doesn't give people opportunity.
for thousands and thousands and thousands of years we had no systems which were as fair for the majority.
Do you think of our current government is still on a course of expanding equal rights? I can think of several ways that this isn't the case.
Which is best done through some form of representation or democracy.
That presumes that you have considered every other method of government.
Part of the problem is, you do not seem to advocate anything.
If you are talking about in this discussion so far, I can see how you might get that impression. But overall I am at least as forward thinking and imaginative as I am critical.
What is it then you imagine society should look like?
That's a big question. I'll tell you some, perhaps more if provoked.
I imagine society should look like a paradise if discussing important things were more commonplace, and health was prioritized ahead of comfort. If the opportunities for the cultivation of intelligence and information were regarded as governmental priorities ahead of efforts to secure advantages over others, I imagine we would have a generation of utter geniuses on our hands instead of today's slavish minded masses.
Sometimes elections are won through fear, sometimes hope, sometimes fiscal sense, sometimes fiscal insanity. In all of it though, you have a choice. But imagining every person to run or be elected to any office is a cartoon caricature of a villain is juvenile. Some are corrupt, some are good, some you agree with, some you disagree with.
You don't know much about systems if you don't recognize that at times they utterly fail at serving their intended purpose and need to be repaired or replaced. If you were trying to get to the top of a mountain and the engine blew on your car, you'd be better off not trying to push the broken down car up the hill. Your smarter option is to repair it or walk.
All have one thing in common though, they were not born to the position nor did they take it by force, people chose them to represent. This is a good thing, even if the people are wrong about who they choose sometimes.
The US governments position of authority was taken by force.
What I said was "Remove law and there is nothing left to balance power and influence.
Which is strange because you know that "removing the law" is an impossibility
"Anarchy plays into the hands of those few with the most, not the other way around."
How you can talk about the ramifications of a condition that you yourself claim to be an impossibility is beyond me.
You replied with nothing.
Nothing that was carefully considered by you that is.
Sure, reality more times than not dictates even in a democracy or representative republic, those with the most still have more power.
That certainly isn't a response to "nothing"
This is curbed to the greatest extent in human history with these types of governments
It's not curbed at all.
and you've proposed nothing better, only pointed out flaws without solutions.
I don't see a problem intrinsic to those who have more, having more power.
I see a problem with those concerned with maintaining advantage over others. I can bounce ideas off people who are into those kind of conversations and just aren't concerned with trying to "seem" smarter.
Okay, but it does not take away from the validity of my argument.
It's not always my goal to respond in direct opposition. Just to be forthright with what I'm thinking. I think your arguments have some merit or I wouldn't bother responding.
Respectful habits ensure nothing without a means of enforcement and agreed standards of what these "respectful habits" would be.
Nothing? Are you sure?
I would be more interested in your solutions than one liners about law vs agreement and law vs respectful habits.
Well the solutions that I see involve broader human dignity which can be achieved by recognizing ones role as a non-subordinate.
This changes in terminology would not in any way change human behavior.
How did you come to that conclusion?
A vague sense of what you think would work better, without specifics, I can assure you will not work better when tried on 300+ million people in this complex a society.
We have to agree on some key universals before we can meaningfully discuss specifics. I enjoy the challenge.
There is no reason why the constitution cannot be strictly adherred to today just as it was 200 years ago, the notion that "it is too complex" these days for the constitution to be strictly adherred to is a big lie. And a lot has changed in the way of fallowing the constitutions intent...I could name them all but it would take too long. And Democracy is not the fairest system, because democracy gives the majority the power to impose. Every decision that is made by collective majority is taken from the individual.
The constitution was designed to keep decisions is the hands of individuals, but the rules are too easily bent. I would not favor an anarchist system, however, because I don't think it would work how it was intended, I would prefer something that Governs based on an immutable set of laws.
Every decision that is made by collective majority is taken from the individual.
This blanket statement is demonstrably incorrect. Ex. Collective majority decides enslavement is wrong. There are less slaves. Hence individual freedom is increased not decreased.
Catchy sentences with no basis are still baseless, even if they sound catchy.
The constitution was designed to keep decisions is the hands of individuals, but the rules are too easily bent.
Ah, so you do agree that the Constitution cannot be strictly adhered to. That it would need modification to ensure rules which could be bent due to changes in society are followed according to how we interpret the spirit of each law translated to current standards.
I would not favor an anarchist system, however, because I don't think it would work how it was intended, I would prefer something that Governs based on an immutable set of laws.
This is good. Something like inalienable rights maybe ;)
Yes I am sure it should be strictly adhered to. And you know what I meant when I said "every decision that is made by collective majority is taken from the individual", I didn't mean decisions to keep them from opressing eachother...I meant decisions that interfer with their ability to make their own decisions. Lastly, you twisted my words on the next part when I said "The constitution was designed to keep decisions in the hands of individuals, but the rules are too easily bent"...it was a clever straw man, nice try.
So than you're an expert and 18th century literature, sociology, vernacular and behavior and understand precisely what every sentence means in context and can interpret the exact meaning for every situation which should ever arise, even should it be one which was impossible in the 18th century. That's quite a trick.
And you know what I meant when I said "every decision that is made by collective majority is taken from the individual", I didn't mean decisions to keep them from opressing eachother...I meant decisions that interfer with their ability to make their own decisions
I did know what you meant, and I described an instance where your catch phrase is wrong. You are the one who decided to go with a catch phrase which did not mean what you meant. Either way though, part of living in any society, even one where the constitution is treated like some religious text handed down by a god, is inevitably going to call for some sacrifices in personal freedom. The freedom to murder, rape, pillage are some examples, but more as determined by that society. I dislike when people throw around "their loss of freedom" as some vague thing. Which freedoms? I find more often those who do this don't mind others losing freedoms, it is only themselves, and in the vaguest of senses, they are worried about. This cheapens real-life instances when legitimate freedoms are actually lost.
Lastly, you twisted my words on the next part when I said "The constitution was designed to keep decisions in the hands of individuals, but the rules are too easily bent"...it was a clever straw man, nice try.
It's not a strawman, it's a very realistic scenario. If the underlying meanings are not brought up to date and adopted to unforeseen situations, following the constitution literally can very well lead to laws directly conflicting with the actual intent.
1. Well, amendments would be the obvious changes, or additions. An example of something which could be changed due to technology is a popular vote or by-state popular vote without electors, since technology makes that much easier today.
2. The point is, without updating or defining the underlying intention of what was written down, it may not be fairly applied to current standards. It has to be refined to remain relevant. This leaves room for corruption of it of course, but without doing so corruption of intentions would be inevitable.
3. I equate anarchism with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some form of governing would eventaully, and likely quickly, fill the void, but it would not resemble the current one. Hence the analogy.
4. We're regressing in many areas most would agree. From my perspective the primary way individual freedoms are being surpressed at this moment is through the recent redefinitions and expanding rights of corporations. This and other regressions I see as sort of on a micro scale, while the overall state of civilization is continually pointing toward more fairness and freedom... overall and on average that is. There are always examples of the opposite.
5. True, I did both state you've not offered a solution and that what you're stating would be a step backwards. It seems contradicting. I meant, from what would come a state of anarchy? My argument is likely something worse than at present.
6. I am arguing against the anarchy stereotype. If you are not espousing this, but as you say changes, than I likely don't have an arguemnt except with your original seeming intent to support anarchy, mistaken on my part or otherwise.
7. Skipping ahead to Do you agree that the liberties we've fought so hard to attain are valued enough by enough people for us to reasonably expect them to remain intact, and dare I say even expand? Or does increased population necessitate the increasing loss of liberty?
This is very valid. I don't think that they are appreciated enough, and I also don't necessarily think that more people means less freedoms (though, it means more complexity to ensure everyone's freedoms and not only the majorities).
8. Government doesn't give people opportunity Very true. What it can do though is ensure other entities cannot take opportunity away, if done the right way. It is actually an essential element to ensuring this in many cases.
9. I don't see a problem intrinsic to those who have more, having more power.
Here I disagree. Within the financial market and at the cash register, fine, but when it comes to deciding law and representation power should be equally shared by all no matter how much one "has."
10. Well the solutions that I see involve broader human dignity which can be achieved by recognizing ones role as a non-subordinate.
Absolutely. How to ensure that is the only argument. You won't find many who argue against this I don't think.
I feel that you always ignore whenever someone brings up that Anarchy does not equate chaos (due to you bringing up that family is not anarchy).
So really, anarchy wouldn't even be possible without government.
And since you're saying that Anarchy is impossible, this would mean that whatever is opposite of Anarchy is the only thing possible. If this is the case, than it is a natural way of doing things, meaning that any "anarchic" endeavors would not be threatening. In fact, you should, in no way, fear Anarchy if it is something that is impossible.
So really, all this description of what Anarchy would be like just sounds like paranoid delusions of something you have described as "impossible".
Anarchy is the absence of order. The family unit you are speaking of is not anarchy.
You are redefining anarchy to simply mean smaller governments, whether that be a family unit, tribe, whatever. However, if there are rules, there is not anarchy.
I'm merely questioning your definition of non-anarchy.
The one throwing out curious definitions is you (like, what is the definition of a government?)
As well, how do rules apply to government? Must they be enforced? And by what body are they enforced? What constitutes rules (which, to you, is so important for proving that Anarchy is impossible)?
Non-anarchy is any state where there are acceptable standards of behavior which are somehow enforced. Enforcement can be anything from prisons or gallows to simply ostracizing an individual, not sharing your hunt with them or what have you. Which is why anarchy is impossible for humans to function in, we cannot function without standards and either purposefully or via instinct enforcing them by some means. Throw a bunch of 4 year olds in a room, and while it may look like anarchy, there is a social order to things even at that age, because it is part of our DNA.
Now, people use anarchy to mean something entirely different I understand, but what people are often referring to as anarchy is simply self-rule, which can work so far as your living room by yourself.
Okay, so then social interaction is inevitable, more times than not I find those espousing anarchy theories simply replace what would be law in government with "agreed behavior" or whatever.
What's the difference? Who enforces it and how they enforce it? Fine.
My argument is society by its nature has to be complex due to the size and all the stuff that makes it up. Not having at least some base agreed upon standards that are not widely enforced beyond even individual interaction would be a step backwards.
Inevitably there are going to be overreaches and inadequacies in anything encompassing so many diverse people, ideas, traditions, philosophies, etc. However, I've yet to see a solution put forth from the anarchy perspective which is not demonstrably something humans have been through before, and something which was worse than what we have now, from tribalism to feudalism to the wild west, it all falls short for the majority the majority of the time.
I fundamentally do not like the idea of blaming an entire system for flaws within that system when there currently is no better system to compare it to. I find the anarchy solutions lazy and disconnected from the actual social human condition.
So your problem has gone from "anarchy is impossible" to "I have yet to see an Anarchist show how we can solve all these problems that I feel government fixes".
Well... if this were the case, would you then be more interested in studying Marxist literature (either by Marx or modern day Marxists like Slajov Zizec)? Or possibly looking into literature by Murray Rothbard?
I find it that your problem with Anarchy is ignorance. When I call you out on how you throw around concrete ideals "family and Anarchy are mutually exclusive" or "family is a smaller government", you switch to "well, Anarchy just doesn't seem like it would be good for us".
what's next in your transition just seems to be... learning.
I hope, though, that in the future whenever Anarchy is brought up you will not deviate back to "Anarchy is impossible because it is chaos and any social interaction is not Anarchy".
But anyway, the simple way to show you why, for the thousandth time, why Anarchy can have "rules" or "groups" or "people working together" is because Anarchy is lack of State or Law. Law is a system of rules enforced by THE STATE. The State is not dynamic. How the State functions within itself can be, but the State itself is an official stamp of government approval. The state makes the rules for everyone else without contract. Merely existing puts you under the influence of the State and you have no choice in the matter.
Your second attempt may be to confuse me with an Anarchist (and I'm not saying that you actually do; just for insurance), and this is not so. I support the State and I support Law. However, I do not distort what Anarchist philosophers have been writing for centuries just because I don't agree with it (or in your case, don't understand it).
I tend to reply to every argument as if the one were altruistically arguing for a point instead of from a position of the merits of a point. So I'll likely continue to reply as if you were an anarchist should that be the subject, apologies ahead of time.
That point aside,
so being born into a State with laws in which you have not choice is different than being born into a family with laws in which you have no choice? Or a tribe? Or whatever?
Give me a scenario which illistrates the difference. Show me how functionally rules operate differently when disseminated from a State compared to any other situation.
Given that you believe that families exist, I find it weird when you say "a family unit is the same as government".
If this were the case, do family units have the right to fight other family units?
A state requires land in where the rule applies. Family rules, however, are only bound through cooperation (and cooperation only). Now, of course, with a State, family units can actually be enforced, but that is ONLY through the State. Otherwise, a Family unit is nothing but that... a family unit.
It is cooperation. A child, no matter where he lives or goes or does, still has a father and mother (unless they die). Whether the child wishes to live by that father's rules is really up to him. In fact, Rothbard spoke on how a child should be allowed to choose where he wishes to live. The only thing giving parents authority is the State law.
Once again, you are trying to manipulate the definition of government (or now, State) just to prove that Anarchy is impossible.
However, if you truly believe that rules existing is what defines non-Anarchy, I feel that this means that Anarchy is the ONLY way as much as it is anything but the way. Rules are made up concepts, and the only things enforcing them are other people. Deviation is very possible, and consequences for that deviation are dynamic. Written Law is just words on paper and hold no ground.
I know that you want to get into real world examples, so I can already assume that you don't wish for your view on Anarchy to be skewed that way, but you are STILL doing it.
I would argue the option of following rules within a family is as much an option within a State, government, whatever. Both have consequences, you have a choice in both. The difference is the consequences and one's perception of how much freedom they have within either.
Here's why I want an example in real life:
I'm born in a family. The patriarch demands I do chores and I don't I kill. I don't do chores and I kill someone. Consequences follow.
I'm born in a state. The state demands I work to pay for my home and I don't kill. I don't work and I kill someone. Consequences follow.
The State has borders and written Law, which is the most important parts for defining a State.
State and Law coexist, essentially. One needs the other.
A family is defined differently, for families are only tied through blood. The rules that ensue afterward are not law, however, if, for your sake, law and borders are established by the leader of the family, no longer is he ruling as a father. He is now ruling as a governor or state leader.
Is a border and calling rules laws the defining characteristic that makes all things, even things with nothing to do with borders, fundamentally different to the individual subject to the rules or laws?
To one subject to a law, what is the difference to them fundamentally whether that law is one from the family unit or one from the state?
If I meet a stranger, and they tell me they cannot jaywalk, does it matter whether they cannot because the state says they cannot or because a patriarch says they cannot? Are they more free if it should happen to be a father figure who has forbidden jaywalking?
I don't believe that to be the case.
I see no difference in practice between any entity which has rules or laws. Since something will naturally develop which comes up with and enforces rules or laws no matter the situation, government is innevitable, and more, the family unit is fundamentally no different than a government in regards to those subject to it and born into it.
The reason families are able to have rules is because the children are reliant on the parents for their survival. If the child does something wrong they can choose to take punishment or run away (obviuosly they will choose punishment). The children are reliant on the parents for their survival so they should be greatful for what their parents give them and falllow their rules...but it is a voluntary thing just as ThePyg says. The same applies to the wive or husband who is loyal and fallows their spouse's rules because they don't want them to break up the volutary contract of their marriage.
The state is different however, the reason people fallow the rules created by the state is because they are coerced to do so. Sometimes the coercion is against things like murder and theft, and other times its just imposed to stop people from making choices.
Essentially the diffference is one uses FORCE and the other uses CONTRACT.
And with a just a little thought you will see why a family unit can be just as coercive as a state, and why you can have just as many freedoms within a state as within a family. You've actually proven my point if you can get beyond a knee-jerk blame government thing.
Fine, but the Government doesn't have the undisputed right to rule, because we don't we don't rely on the Government for our livlihood, like children do parents. --Not saying their shouldn't be Government--
actually there are many tiers of anarchy. have you heard of communo-anarchy(something like that)? no laws no government but set prices on everything and each town or place may decide on any rules or ways of judgement they want to put in place. it is far from pure anarchy but the scope of what anarchy covers is vastly misunderstood.
I think it depends on the kind of anarchism that is implemented.
If it is a type of anarcho syndicalism, or pure socialism or communism, then I beleive that the limited individualism that exists currently among some (i.e. people who have the time to develop themselves as they see fit, mainly rich people who have no, or very few, obligations, or luckly people who managed to get a job in an area that they love e.g. scientists, philosophers, etc.) would blossom. I beleive a far freer, far finer form of individualism would take root in society, with much greater intensity.
Ironically however, if individual anarchism is implemented, it is very likely to lead to dictatorship.
Lack of choice. If all property is owned by everyone, then how can there be any economic choices like: selling your labor, your service, your product...or to buying someone else's labor, product, or service (The latter is impossible without the former and vise versa). Not only that, if the community decides what your labor should purchase, you lose the power to choose for yourself what your labor should purchase.
Anarchy doesn't necessarily imply chaos, it only implies the lack of a certralised authority, and it isn't a bad thing, in fact it can be a very very good thing. Anarchism was implemented successfully on a large scale in Spain prior to Franco's vistory, i.e.