News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[Al68]

"You are arguing in favor of socialism, not anarchism. How would society benefit from anarchy?"

Anarchism is a very broad set of ideologies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism, from collectivist to individualist. The only common theme as I am aware, is that any form of authority has prove itself to be legitimate. I'll provide a youtube video of Noam Chomsky talking on this point.



I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.

I think WhoWee was referring to the authoritarian socialist centralized power that used force to provide your "university fees paid as well as an interest free student loan and free health care." That is an example of socialist authoritarianism, not anarchism.

You said you were thankful that you lived in a country that used authoritarian force against others to provide your "university fees, loans, and health care", now you say you would prefer to live in a country that isn't authoritarian? Which is it?

 

[madness]

You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.

 

[jambaugh]

I would prefer to live in a society where power is not centralised in a tiny proportion of the population, and I think the burden of proof is on the authoritarians.

Burden of proof of what? I haven't heard arguments only claims. What values are you asserting anarchy and most especially socialistic anarchy better fulfill in their actualization than say Federal capitalism? It might help to outline the priorities before speaking of burden of proof.

Is individual civil liberty less important than the "common good"? Is individual welfare outweighed by common welfare? Does liberty trump wellbeing (as defined by others?)
I.e. is it better for individuals to have the right to act against their own interests as defined by criterion other than their own?

Once a goal or a value to be optimized is established then what beginning assumptions are we to make? People act rationally? Power corrupts? 2+2=5?

It would also be helpful if you could give in clear terms what you mean by Anarchism. You speak of "grass roots democracy" but that's "pure democracy" not anarchism as you do not explain in any detail what the voters have the authority to decide, especially with regard to the use of force. Anarchism presumably has something to say about distribution of the authority to use force.

I suggest you sit down, and write your own draft charter or constitution or social contract outlining how an anarchistic system as you see it would be implemented. It needn't be perfect but it would be a hint at your definition.

I still for the life of me do not understand what you mean by anarchistic socialism or socialist anarchism or what-ever. Socialism dictates redistribution of wealth but that cannot be implemented without coercive force which presumes at least temporarily the action of a state. You speak disparagingly about a system where wealth is "inequitably distributed" but that distribution occurs via free choice contracts in the absence of coercive force. I can understand the definition of anarchistic capitalism but I can also argue against it...(specifically the ability to hire thugs to coerce).

I don't think your ideology is either well defined or self consistent.

 

[Galteeth]

They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.

It's called propaganda.

But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.

The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state. There are different views on this subject among the anarchist/libertarian left.

Being a self-described anarchist, I have given these matter a lot of thought, and am familiar with the various arguments. Some left anarchists take the meaning of the world "anarchy" very literally, meaning no rulers, or in other words, no hierarchy, even one that evolves without the use of force. Others are not so extreme, and believe in the idea of private property although not necessarily that force is justified to defend it. Most of these on the libertarian left do not extend this concept to ownership over means of production, or land, or other things of this sort where a single individual's ownership gives them a perpetually stronger bargaining position for free exchange then is created by the fruit of their labor alone. Thus opposing "capitalism" from this viewpoint is not opposing a "free market" but the notion of incruing rewards from the re-investment of capital.
Other anarchists see the term as a negative right, i.e., the absolute right to be free of violence, with economic arrangements as a secondary matter entirely (although since all economic arrangements would require the absolute consent of all involved, it is unlikely you would have "capitalists" in the modern sense of the term.)
On the right, you have many who don't oppose violence at all, just its monopoly. This is somewhat similar to the position of Rothbard. To me this is the most incoherent position, as the "competing" private forces are essentially warring governments.
You also have more moderate right wing anarchists who oppose force, but support the notion of property and capital in its modern form. You also have "minarchists" which are similar to what one thinks of as modern day american libertarians, who see the necessity of a state, but only in an absolute minimal role, which means preventing violence, protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts.
Many of these "minarchist" types also believe in the notion of keeping the state as local as possible.

 

[jambaugh]

As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.

Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.

There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).

Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".

Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?

 

[Al68]

You don't have to choose between socialism and anarchism, hence the term socialist anarchism. This has been discussed at length already in this thread.

The choice is between authoritarianism and anarchism (or something in between).

Sure, in the absence of state (or state-like) economic "authority", both voluntary socialism and capitalism would be possible, and both would exist. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, and neither does any libertarian or anarchist I've heard of.

"Voluntary socialism" exists in the U.S. and includes every U.S. citizen that chooses (volunteers) to participate.

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Socialism (or capitalism) logically can either be voluntary or include everyone, but not both.

As stated, I agree with the quote above. In practice however, state socialism includes everyone and excludes true capitalism at all but the smallest scales.

Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc. One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

 

[jambaugh]

...Democratic 'socialism' is in fact capitalism with an expanded public sector (relative to the US) ie most European states, Canada,etc.

Not "is" but rather democracy tends to choose capitalism mostly over socialism. Just because A is compromised to allow a little bit of B doesn't make A=B.

One only has look at the strong international corporations and private sector banks that exist in these countries, not to mention very viable small business sectors that generally enjoy the protection (but not the control) of the government. In democracies, capitalism dominates the economy, but voluntary socialistic organizations can exist such as cooperatives, voluntary collectives, etc.

But note the more freedom the more these "wealth concentrating" institutions exist. This fact should say something to the idealist who thinks them evil or unjust. If banks and corporations are exploiting the workers why do they exist and even thrive in a free society? Why do they emerge and profit if they are not providing beneficial services?
[I am asking this question mainly of the statest socialist and communists out there.]

Let me also add to the anecdotes of history the Israeli kibbutz, another miserable failure of socialistic ideals.

In state socialism, there is no "voluntary capitalism". The state decides what firms can operate under self-management and earn (and retain) "profits". (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Nicaragua, and evolving in Venezuela).

I would qualify that there is no "legitimate" voluntary capitalism. I.e. it goes on but under the state's radar or at least their official radar. There is always barter and black markets (and graft to the local officials who look the other way).

 

[Galteeth]

As I suggested and as Chomsky seems to indicate in the youtube interview posted, anarchism seems more a political direction similar to left vs right than a specific system of principles or goal. It is a direction in one of the many dimensions of political systems.

Nonetheless we can define "anarchy" as it is traditionally used as the asymptotic limit (stateless society) and I think it obvious this is at best a highly unstable transitory situation. It is a meaningful phenomenon and the right word is "anarchy" so I suggest those trying to define a political ideal qualify further their labels.

There are also two factors in state structure which I am seeing ignored here but which are exemplified by Federalism. Federalism advocates maximum authority held by the most central state but minimal jurisdiction. The constraint on this minimization which keeps it from being trivial (zero jurisdiction) is the justification for the use of force also mentioned by Chomsky. Dually maximal jurisdiction is reserved for the most distributed level (the individual as a state of 1) but minimal authority (only authority over self and property and potentially over incompetent dependents such as children).

Federalism seems to me to have been designed to promote the ideals espoused by anarchists (sans economic qualifiers such as socialist) while preserving the stability lacking in "naive anarchism".

Is Federal Anarchism an oxymoron in the sense you anarchists define anarchism?

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence." This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale.
It is likely true that in such a small and competitive scale of government, justifications for the use of force will be extremely arbitrary, (such as "I feel like killing that person over there") but this is still a state imposing its will through coercion. Most people likely define some arbitrary cutoff point between "gangs with guns" and "states" although on close examination it is a matter of continuum. (For example, even the United States Government, which most would consider being the exemplar of a state in the opposite sense of warring gangs, does not follow its own fundamental "contract with the governed" from which it allegedly derives the right to exert force.)

 

[Al68]

The context that might make this more familiar to you is that private property rights were seen as being enforced by the state.

Of course, but the practice of claiming ownership of property was not invented or introduced by the state.

In society there are many people who will want to claim ownership and use property, and defend it. Maybe the state will help them defend it, maybe not. In an anarchist society, they will at least try to defend it themselves, or pay for private security.

Anarcho-socialists cannot just decide these people won't exist, they must decide whether or not to use force against them.

As far as "voluntary socialism", it seems to me that by definition, it would include only those who choose to "volunteer", which is fine by me, and I think such a thing has never had any real political opposition.

 

[jambaugh]

1. In short, federalism could fall in the range of libertarianism but not really of anarchism.

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

2. You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

This says nothing of its rationale or its consistent application. I would argue that in the typical chaotic situation to which you are referring as "stateless" what you really have is very small competing governments trying to assert control. The difference between this and warring tribes, civil wars as of the type seen in Africa, or large warring nation states is really just a matter of scale...

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You have not really defined "state." The context in which you are using the phrase "stateless society" implies the notion of violent chaos. Personally, the only consistent definition of state that I can come up with is "aggressive human violence."

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

 

[Galteeth]

OK Then yes it is an oxymoron. I'm just trying to pin down the definition being used by self labeled anarchists.

I agree and have made this point earlier in the thread. Hence anarchy=stateless society is essentially meaningless.

Agreed. Hence though it may occur briefly a state of anarchy(=stateless society) quickly decays (devolves? evolves?) into a waring sates and rule of the powerful.

Again this condition of anarchy does occur (typically with a disaster or disintegration of an organized state) so the term used as so defined is meaningful and useful within our language. I don't see the virtue of redefining it in an attempt to label a (non nihilistic) political ideal. As I suggested it is at best an ordering direction comparable to the "Left" vs "Right" qualifiers.

If you want to redefine anarchy and define anarchism in terms of justification of authority then I have a couple of problems there.

In some discussions I've seen "no self justifying authority" presented as an anarchistic ideal. In a democracy or republic the people are the state hence the there can be no external justification. In a theocratic monarchy there is an external justification of authority in the "divine right of kings". God justifies the state.

I don't understand how one can qualify justification without being specific about the mechanism of justification. If it is a matter of objective reason then you still, to be objective, must begin with an agreed upon set of values. Any "X should Y" assertion supposes a value system by which this is argued. "You should plant your corn early this year! (to maximize productivity and profit)"

One may begin with the socialist ideal and this justifies certain systems and acts of authority over others. One may begin with capitalist ideal, or a value system prioritizing security, or productivity, or growth. What I see in many "anarchistic" arguments is criticism of certain forms as lacking justification without the an argument explicitly stating the value ideal to show that the suggested anarchistic replacement is an improvement.

Such as: "Capitalism unfairly distributes wealth" without the explaining how fair and unfair are determined. There is often an implied socialistic value system underneath such claims.

Getting back to "anarchism as no unjustified authority" I would then argue that under that definition Federalism is by definition anarchism...but better called Federalism.

Of course I should put up or shut up. Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. Just as one should establish ones axioms before arguing theorems and ones epistemology before arguing truths one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

I agree with all of this, which is why I personally see anarchy as more of an ethical code then a political system/ideal. I don't believe the use of force is justified except in immediate self-defene. The result of everyone having this same ethical code would in my mind be anarchy. They don't and they won't, but that's irrelevant from my point of view. Sort of like how one can believe murder is immoral but sill recognize that other people wil go on murdering irrelevant of that initial person's moral beliefs.
I don't claim these views necessarily represent a majority or even a large portion of self-described anarchists, although some type of similar moral ideal is often an underlying motivator, if not fleshed out coherently.

 

[Galteeth]

The state is a social construct. "Aggressive human violence" in and of itself does not make a state though it may be one of the tools used by a state to assert its dominance.

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

"The state is a social construct." In common parlance yes, but this construct is extremely ill-defined, even by those who use the word in this manner. That is to say, while someone can say that America is a state, and the Bloods who enforce their drug turf are not a state, they rarely can elucidate what the actual demarcation line is between state and non-state.

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

 

[Galteeth]

I think you could define a state as an entity that exercises full 'sovereignty' over a defined territory. 'Full sovereignty' could be defined as not recognizing any higher authority. This would not preclude the state from entering into treaties or other agreements voluntarily according to the will of the sovereign.

In the case of gangs claiming defined territory, I would think they could be 'states' if they in fact exercised full unfettered sovereignty over that territory. An additional possible requirement for a state might be that it be recognized by other states.

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.

Also any challenge on a territorial claim until one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined until after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)

In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.

I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to achieve his aims.

From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The fact remains that if an anarchist community is founded on land claimed by a state, the community is in principle subject to the sovereign whether the sovereign chooses to enforce its authority or not. If the anarchist community challenges the authority of the sovereign, then it is in rebellion and an unstable situation exists until the situation is resolved. If the anarchist community is successful in establishing its independence it de facto obtains sovereignty over the land it uses and becomes a state whether it wants to or not.

For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted. Under such circumstances it would effectively become a state with its own rules of conduct (if you don't want to use the term "laws").

The idea of a state is a legal concept. It includes the idea of a defined territory with recognized boundaries. The CSA never fully established its legality as a state although it was organized as one. Its claim to its territory was immediately challenged by the USA and de facto control over it's claimed territory was limited by the shifting lines of battle. Stability was restored when the USA won and the CSA disappeared. No other power ever recognized the CSA.

 

[WhoWee]

This is why I think anarchy is outdated in the real modern world. If an anarchist community claims territory and recognizes no higher authority over that territory, it begins to look like a state. It would seem that anarchist communities are best suited to a migratory existence over unclaimed territory. As far as I know,nowadays, this could possibly be Antarctica or the high seas. I suppose you could have a true anarchist community living on boats based in international waters.

Are you describing Pirates?

 

[Galteeth]

Are you describing Pirates?

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



I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Galteeth]

The most famous "anarchist" pirates (who probably never existed):

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

 

[WhoWee]

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



I would not personally define these as anarchist, for a variety of reasons.

Interesting link, not even Pirates could exist for long (as true Anarchists) without assembling a type of Government - to form and recognize treaties.

 

[jambaugh]

Let me think about my own hierarchy of values and I'll post them. ... one should establish ones ethic before arguing politics.

The only honest consistent set of values I could come up with are...
I value most the prosperity and freedom of myself and my ken and friends prioritized by distance from me but including eventually all persons.

I worked out a nice classification of ethical attitudes. I am an ambitious mutualist in that I will be altruistic when it is at no or very little cost to me and otherwise seek my own benefit. Essentially Ayn Rand's rational self interest (though not her definition of altruism which she defined as requiring sacrifice.)

I believe too anarchistic a system will expose me too often to aggression from others. Likewise a monarchy with me at the top though that also would cost me too much time and effort administering the responsibilities that gives me over others.

I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Are you describing Pirates?

If you distinguish between privateers and pirates, then a pirate ship or pirate organization could be considered an anarchist entity since they are stateless and self-governing. Purists might want to say they are not anarchist because, for the most part, they are (or at least were) authoritarian. However, if I remember my history correctly, Blackbeard was careful to share the booty equitably with the crew. The Somali pirates are land based but might be considered anarchists because they live in a non-functional state. Of course, seafaring societies need not be pirates. They could earn income from fishing or trafficking in legal (or illegal) commerce.

http://talkradionews.com/2009/04/analysis-the-“poverty-of-leadership”-in-somalia/

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think a Federalism with laissez faire free market economics will maximize my personal prosperity and that of my ken friends fellow citizen and the rest of the world (in that order).

That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).

 

[Jasongreat]

That would describe the USA up to about 1933, at least if you were of the 'right' ancestry (=WASP+ maybe other NW European).

IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

IMO that would describe the USA up to about 1861.

The USA had a huge surge in immigration after the Civil War, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe. However, jambaugh was talking about our personal prosperity. There was overt discrimination against these people (not mention the traditional "discriminatees"; African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, etc) in terms of getting into the best universities and rising to the higher jobs in business or in government. It's fair to say the upper classes were and are still dominated by WASPs and NW European surnames. Harvard had a quota for Jews as did other universities. This situation didn't dramatically change after 1933 either. I chose that date primarily as the end of laissez faire economics (which had been declining since 1861 but lasted somewhat through the 1920s). Otherwise, the situation is changing only very slowly. Currently, the USA has a president with a Kenyan surname, but to date, only one Catholic, no Jews, and no Latin surnames. In fact every US President other than Obama has been a WASP except Van Buren (Dutch),the two Roosevelts (Dutch), Kennedy (Irish Catholic), Hoover (German) and Eisenhower(German). Dutch, German and "Scotch-Irish" surnames are more or less "honorary" WASPs if they're Protestant.

This is off topic except to say that anarchist communities are IMHO even more likely to have restrictive membership (so there is a common set of agreed upon customs and beliefs reducing the need for coercion) than pluralistic states like the USA.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/harvard.html

 

[Al68]

For example, if the community wanted to recognize plural marriage, including persons under a certain age, in violation of the laws of the state, it would either have to be accommodated by the state by means of a waiver, accommodate the state by obeying its laws, or successfully rebel so that it could do whatever it wanted.

Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.

Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Or just recognize plural marriages internally but not externally, like is currently being practiced in the U.S.

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?

Personally, I think one wife is about one too many, though.

Maybe there's safety in numbers?

 

[Galteeth]

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?




Maybe there's safety in numbers?

Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.

 

[Al68]

The problem arises when 40 year old men take 12 year old girls as wives. Also there's all kinds of property and basic human rights issues if women are subordinate to men with institutionalized plural marriage. What about outright slavery? Should the US tolerate human rights violations "internally"?

I was only pointing out how communities recognize plural marriages in the U.S., I don't advocate them. Like I said, I think one wife is too many.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Slavery isn't really analagous to plural marriages. Slavery by definition can't be consensual.

It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.

EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?

 

[Galteeth]

It's a spectrum. Plural marriages might be anything from communal (among consenting adults)and equal for both sexes, to an oppressive relationship of one sex over the other. Further down the gradient is effective or outright slavery. Certainly a marriage (plural or not) between a 40 year old man and a 12 year old girl is not an equal relationship and IMHO not consensual.

EDIT: The real issue is whether anarchism can really be a model for a society in the modern world. Who enforces human rights for example? How does an isolated community defend itself against aggression? Suppose all states disappeared. Would there be some form of worldwide set of conventions for anarchist communities? How would they be enforced? Does such enforcement go against the grain of truly independent anarchist communities?

The first two questions don't make much sense in the context of anarchism as I have been defining it.

For the rest:
3. NO.
4. Conventions might be enforced by social pressure and the neccessity to co-operate, but the whole point is that no individual or individuals have to accept this and can try to go it alone if they want.
5. Explained.
6. No

These are only the answers for the anarchism I have been talking about. Qualifying a different anarchist philosophy would result in different answers.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Here is a conceptual difficulty with that definition. Imagine a situation where a state claims full sovereignty over a territory. There could be a region within that territory where a group exists that enforces its own rules and such and flaunts the laws of the state, but makes no challenge to the highest authority and perhaps even acknowledges them in some way (say through tax or tribute.) Thus that entity would not be a state, even if they had effective local control.

Also any challenge on a territorial claim until one side has been vanquished sufficiently to make that claim null invalidates a definition of state for either group from the perspective of someone living inside that territory. Thus the definition of what constitutes a "state" is undefined until after the outcome of the conflict (I.e, the Confederate States of America was not a state, but if they had won the war, they would have been.)
This would even be true if there was no realistic chance for one group to extend their influence over said region as long as it was not worth it to extinguish the challenging group, leaving the area in a stateless position. (Schrodinger's Catsylvania)

In terms of states acknowledging each other, you can easily wind up with diamterically oppossed positions on what constitutes a state depending on which side's point of view you engage from.

I think the total sovereignty thing really is just a useful social construction. The reality it seems to me is that there are states within states, and the individual unit of state is one, a single individual willing to use violence to achieve his aims.

From this perspective (my perspective) it is pointless to talk about anarchism in territorial notions, the only relevant question is am I a unit of state or non-state, and if I choose non-state, I am refusing to impose my will on others by definition (at least through violent means), so there is no point in worrying about the broader questions of organization. An anarchist community could be a community of people who interact with each other on a voluntary basis, even if they have no power to resist a state (which they don't by definiton.)
It's a different gestalt then the conventional framework of politics.

The word "anarchy" literally means 'no state' or 'no sovereign'. As far what a state is, the modern definition is a legal one involving the idea of 'full sovereignty' over a territory with defined boundaries.

Historians might not apply such a definition to past societies. For example, was the North American Iroquois Confederation a state? It was a federation of six tribes living in loosely defined areas, but there were no sharp boundaries. However, they were not migratory. They lived in villages and did some garden type farming. In general most ancient states did not have sharp boundaries as far as I know.

If you're using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.

Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.

True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.

http://www.johnzerzan.net/

 

[Galteeth]

If your using these terms in an unconventional way, I suppose you can redefine them freely, but it's not clear to me just how your concept works. You don't like violence or coercive authority. OK, nothing unusual there. Your idea of anarchy apparently doesn't really mean "stateless'. It's an ethic based on voluntary cooperation. I've belonged to several "communes" in my life and they all eventually failed. Reasons: 1)Not everyone pulls their weight 2) Someone always ends up being "in charge" 3)Turnover because of personality clashes 4) Because of turnover, new members can't always be screened well, resulting in disruptive "bad apples" wrecking the arrangement. I could go on but I think I make my point.

Even a successful commune has to pay taxes, pay bills, and generally obey county, state and federal laws. Most of us were students, but some of us had day jobs. We had to live in the reality of a money economy even though we grew most of our own food and made a lot of our own tools and possessions from scavenged parts mostly from the local junk yard.

True anarchy was the natural form of social organization in neolithic times when the individual's survival depended on the group. To be excluded could mean death Today, anarchy is not viable macro-economically and difficult micro-economically as a practical alternative to the state and its economic system, IMO. It's just an idea, possibly for the future when people might live in orbiting space colonies (see GK O'Neill ref below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O'Neill

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/state

Here's someone with some interesting ideas that can have no practical consequences (unless most of us disappear) IMHO.

http://www.johnzerzan.net/

Well, I agree with much of what you said. I don't really see any of the reasons your communes failed as being unexpected or even necessarily bad. Since I'm really talking about ethics here, I don't see the need for isolation of the society. I recognize the advantages that an advanced division of labor brings.


Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.

 

[Al68]

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Let's say, by some miracle, no one is able to use violence against other humans anymore. Let's say suddenly, for no explained reason, everyone gets "clockworked orange," and gets ill whenever they think about doing a violent act. What do you think would happen? Would society collapse? Would people starve to death? Would everyone just stop going to work, stop doing business?

Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.

How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.

And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.

 

[Galteeth]

Assuming that the restriction on violence applies to force used to control one's claim of private goods/property, then why would anyone go to work? People are human, and most simply won't bother going to work if they don't have a means to protect their claim to whatever they sell their labor for.

How would a dispute get settled over who gets to eat the fish I caught? An inability to use force means whoever can grab it and run the fastest gets to eat it, assuming that grabbing and running are not examples of violence.

And if the person that caught the fish (as an example) has no means to control such fish, in reality he will have no material reason to fish.

While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.

Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?

 

[Al68]

While I understand what you are saying, and agree this miight be the case in very poor societies, I would think that in a place like America, while there may be some who would become thieves likes this, most people would carry along with their business.

Do you really think the reason most people don't break into your house and take all your stuff is fear of punishment?

No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.

And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.

 

[Galteeth]

No, but the problem is never "most people", it's the few bad apples.

And I have to point out that the reason America isn't generally poor is because private property claims are protected (by force). Of course that's not an argument against anarchy, since that would be the case with or without government.

The few bad apples will still have consequences, i.e., social condemnation, refusal of co-operation, etc. It really does seem like its a systemic risk.

What are you comparing America to in this regards?

 

[Galteeth]

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.

Well if a state was based purely on voluntary co-operation then I don't have a problem with it, and I don't think most anarchists would either.

 

[noblegas]

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence. Your above scenario does not depict a state of anarchy simply because there is no violence and hence no state as you choose to define it.

Thats impossible. Government's sole existence depends on executing force in order for it to be maintained. Please direct me to a system of government that currently exists where people are voluntarily paying for various services provided by the government where they are arrested. If government could exist without force, then why are people arrested for not paying for income tax or up conscription was enforced by the US government up until 1973 ?

 

[Al68]

The few bad apples will still have consequences, i.e., social condemnation, refusal of co-operation, etc. It really does seem like its a systemic risk.

We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.

What are you comparing America to in this regards?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.

But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.

 

[Galteeth]

We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.

But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.

I meant "does NOT seem like a systemic risk"

 

[Galteeth]

We have that now, plus fear of imprisonment, and they still do it way too often.I'm not sure what you mean, but I was pointing out that capitalism is the source of our prosperity, and depends on the (defensive) use of force to protect private property claims, whether government provides assistance or not.

But like I pointed out, even in the absence of government, people would use force to protect property claims, so it's not an argument for or against anarchism.

This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.

 

[Al68]

This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.

I never said I favored a monopoly of force, only that I don't oppose the use of defensive force in general.

I think we agree that government should not have such a monopoly. I'm not one of those against "taking the law into your own hands", since it is in our hands to begin with. I always hated that phrase, it's like my babysitter telling me not to take "watching my kid" into my own hands.

Edit: I just reread your post about people "getting ill whenever they think about doing a violent act". Maybe I misinterpreted it, if "violent act" refers only to initiation of force, not use of force in general.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thats impossible. Government's sole existence depends on executing force in order for it to be maintained. Please direct me to a system of government that currently exists where people are voluntarily paying for various services provided by the government where they are arrested. If government could exist without force, then why are people arrested for not paying for income tax or up conscription was enforced by the US government up until 1973 ?

A government/state has far more tools at its disposal for keeping its dominion than just force. The lack of ability to use force does not negate all other possibilities. Are there examples of governments that did not use force? I do not know. I have never seen a dog without fur but if I did I doubt I would question whether or not it is a dog.

This is going back to the monopoly of force arguments we were having earlier in the thread about what defines a government. I use George Washington's definition.

It's still a limited if poetic definition. Most governments have not possessed a monopoly on force. All citizens possesses the right to exercise force to protect themselves or their property. People are capable of hiring themselves out as bouncers, body guards, security guards, bounty hunters, or even private police. The police and military have an authority granted by the government to use force in certain situations. It is not necessarily a monopoly nor would a 'monopoly of force' be the sole defining element of a government. As I already noted there are many tools at the governments disposal for asserting itself and maintaining its dominion. By far the most powerful means a government has to maintain control is having its citizens support and agree with it of their own free will.

 

[jambaugh]

Your definition of government and/or state as the use of violence is rather limited. There can be a state and government without the use of force or violence.

Much as we might wish it so... it just ain't so. You can't stop murderers with harsh words and scolding. You can't collect taxes with "you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" There ain't no government without a Marshal, Sheriff, or Policeman with the authority to toss your *** into the poky if you break the rules and with a gun or billy-club on his belt to back him up.

Government is the coordinated use of force. Nothing more... nothing less!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Much as we might wish it so... it just ain't so. You can't stop murderers with harsh words and scolding. You can't collect taxes with "you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" There ain't no government without a Marshal, Sheriff, or Policeman with the authority to toss your *** into the poky if you break the rules and with a gun or billy-club on his belt to back him up.

Government is the coordinated use of force. Nothing more... nothing less!

Why does the government have to do any of the above? The people can do it themselves if they so choose but it is easier to assign a person to that capacity.

"you should be ashamed you're not paying your fair share!" Shame and social pressure are probably the most efficient means the government uses to get things done. It is enough for most people. You will note that most people do not have federal agents showing up at their doors each year to make sure they pay their taxes. People do it anyway.

To believe that violence is the only method of keeping order and structure to a society is incredibly lacking in imagination.

You may note that there are many "coordinated use of force" that are nothing similar to government. So saying it is nothing more and nothing less is rather dishonest. You are taking a single common attribute of a thing and claiming it is the essence of what that thing is.
All humans have blood. Would you say that blood is the single defining attribute of what it is to be human regardless of the fact that there are plenty of other shared characteristics and that humans are not the only living things that possesses blood?

 

[jambaugh]

Why does the government have to do any of the above? The people can do it themselves if they so choose but it is easier to assign a person to that capacity.

Easier? Rather it is necessary ultimately and "who assigns?" defines themselves as "the government." Government is (a case of) a group of individuals acting. There is no such distinction as "people can do it themselves" government is people too. You have some rules about who is going to go arrest the murderer or mugger. Who is going to be sure we have the right culprit and what is to be done with them. The level of formality is a quality of government's form.

To believe that violence is the only method of keeping order and structure to a society is incredibly lacking in imagination.

To believe government can act without --at some level-- the threat of violence to back up that action is incredibly naive. But of course once a government is in place to control private sector violence (its principle role) then much of the remain "structure" can --and I believe should-- be handled in the private sector. But e.g. the Salvation Army can't function without the police to arrest those who would bludgeon Santa with his own bell and take his money bucket.

I challenge you to name one example (real or imagined) where a society "keeps order and structure" without the use of force or without a force backed government in the background suppressing violent resistance to that order and structure.

You may parrot Rodney King in asking "Why can't we all just get along?" but the undeniable truth is that we just can't. Someone is going to steal his neighbor's mule. Try to boycott him into returning it and it might work until someone realizes he can just break the boycott by threats to use more violence. At some point an organized body of men must suppress this. You can have your government hire its police on a case by case basis but that is just a detail of administration. There must be some decision making body to authorize the posse. Without it or with competing bodies you get mobs and open warfare.

You may note that there are many "coordinated use of force" that are nothing similar to government. So saying it is nothing more and nothing less is rather dishonest.

There are more details but that is about it. Of course there are domains where established government has broken down or failed to assert itself to suppress the local competition e.g. neighborhood street gangs and mafia. But note they are primitive forms of government with established rules of behavior, hierarchy, rank, and violent punishment for those who break the rules.

You are taking a single common attribute of a thing and claiming it is the essence of what that thing is.

Yes I am. In this case it is the defining attribute not just a common attribute.

All humans have blood. Would you say that blood is the single defining attribute of what it is to be human regardless of the fact that there are plenty of other shared characteristics and that humans are not the only living things that possesses blood?

Yours is the bad logic. Just because A is a subcase of B and B is not always C doesn't mean A is not always C. e.g.

A = C = x is a defining attribute
B = x is a common attribute

Human DNA is the single defining attribute of humans within the class of organisms and so "being human" does equate to having human DNA. All other human attributes large and small manifest from how that DNA functions. Even our laws and social rules derive from the drive to preserve and propagate our DNA.

I have been asserting here that Government's defining attribute is the coordinated use of force. I challenge you to prove otherwise. All distinctions of types of governments ultimately come down to the details of who, how, when, and why that force is to be applied. Like the DNA above it is how violent force functions that dictates all other attributes of a government including its existence and necessity.

[EDIT:] OK If you don't like my definition of government state your own. Maybe we are arguing semantics. But I think only my definition is free of implicit assertions about the nature of reality (and thus is a definition and not a hypothesis). Governments state "thou shall..." or "thou shalt not..." with an implicit or explicit "or else". Any institution that says "thou should" is just giving advice or opinion and is insufficient to suppress those saying "thou shalt hand over your wallet or else I'll bludgeon you!"

 

[Galteeth]

Easier? Rather it is necessary ultimately and "who assigns?" defines themselves as "the government." Government is (a case of) a group of individuals acting. There is no such distinction as "people can do it themselves" government is people too. You have some rules about who is going to go arrest the murderer or mugger. Who is going to be sure we have the right culprit and what is to be done with them. The level of formality is a quality of government's form.

To believe government can act without --at some level-- the threat of violence to back up that action is incredibly naive. But of course once a government is in place to control private sector violence (its principle role) then much of the remain "structure" can --and I believe should-- be handled in the private sector. But e.g. the Salvation Army can't function without the police to arrest those who would bludgeon Santa with his own bell and take his money bucket.

I challenge you to name one example (real or imagined) where a society "keeps order and structure" without the use of force or without a force backed government in the background suppressing violent resistance to that order and structure.

You may parrot Rodney King in asking "Why can't we all just get along?" but the undeniable truth is that we just can't. Someone is going to steal his neighbor's mule. Try to boycott him into returning it and it might work until someone realizes he can just break the boycott by threats to use more violence. At some point an organized body of men must suppress this. You can have your government hire its police on a case by case basis but that is just a detail of administration. There must be some decision making body to authorize the posse. Without it or with competing bodies you get mobs and open warfare.


There are more details but that is about it. Of course there are domains where established government has broken down or failed to assert itself to suppress the local competition e.g. neighborhood street gangs and mafia. But note they are primitive forms of government with established rules of behavior, hierarchy, rank, and violent punishment for those who break the rules.

Yes I am. In this case it is the defining attribute not just a common attribute.

Yours is the bad logic. Just because A is a subcase of B and B is not always C doesn't mean A is not always C. e.g.

A = C = x is a defining attribute
B = x is a common attribute

Human DNA is the single defining attribute of humans within the class of organisms and so "being human" does equate to having human DNA. All other human attributes large and small manifest from how that DNA functions. Even our laws and social rules derive from the drive to preserve and propagate our DNA.

I have been asserting here that Government's defining attribute is the coordinated use of force. I challenge you to prove otherwise. All distinctions of types of governments ultimately come down to the details of who, how, when, and why that force is to be applied. Like the DNA above it is how violent force functions that dictates all other attributes of a government including its existence and necessity.

[EDIT:] OK If you don't like my definition of government state your own. Maybe we are arguing semantics. But I think only my definition is free of implicit assertions about the nature of reality (and thus is a definition and not a hypothesis). Governments state "thou shall..." or "thou shalt not..." with an implicit or explicit "or else". Any institution that says "thou should" is just giving advice or opinion and is insufficient to suppress those saying "thou shalt hand over your wallet or else I'll bludgeon you!"

I agree with jambaugh in regards to definition, although I reach slightly different conclusions.

I think the way "The statuatory ape" (love that name by the way) is thinking of government is in more of the social construct sense.
But ulitmately, every law or regulation passed by the government is backed up with by "or else."
A slightly more convoluted form of this is when a government creates money to pay for something, but this is still ultimately backed by force since the money in such situations is backed by taxes or currency monopoly or some other form of resource extraction that is ultimately not voluntary.


Getting back to anarchism, and heading slightly into redundancy, I don't think a "government" that isn't backed by force is something most anarchists have a problem with. If the only means of a government enforcing its rules were the strength of the ideas of the rules, social pressure, and withholding co-operation, I don't think most anarchists have objection.

Of course as I have pointed out, I don't speak for all anarchists, and there are some who think any form of heirarchy, even it's voluntary, is wrong (although I personally feel a lot of this is based on wooly thinking and incomplete concepts).