News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[noblegas]

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.

A dog does not have the means to steal all the resources that would give him an advantage over its enemies. A dog cannot assemble other dogs together to overpower its opponents. If the other possibilities are more worthy than using the threat of force , then why wouldn't individuals that make up a body of government used its other resources to fight against its opponents that do not require force? Why have most civilizations throughout human history needed a military to maintain their power if government considered something like diplomacy as a worthy weapon? Perfect physics analogy: Power=Work/time= Force*distance/time;

Conclusion: The government needs power in ordered to be maintained, without force , the government would have no perfect power; Therefore, the government could not exist without implementing force, like human could live any longer if they did not regularly consumed water or went long periods without consuming water.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

[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 define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.

Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states. In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.

There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.

Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority. They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own. Certainly a 'party' or aristocracy in some forms of state and government have separate social niches but these are generally seen as a part of the community or state social structure as a whole rather than separate and independent.

I could come up with more distinctions for my definition but I am a bit busy at the moment feel free to question me on other aspects of my definition that I have not touched upon.

Conclusion: The government needs power in ordered to be maintained, without force , the government would have no perfect power; Therefore, the government could not exist without implementing force, like human could live any longer if they did not regularly consumed water or went long periods without consuming water.

Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?

 

[Galteeth]

I define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.

Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states. In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.

There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.

Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority. They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own. Certainly a 'party' or aristocracy in some forms of state and government have separate social niches but these are generally seen as a part of the community or state social structure as a whole rather than separate and independent.

I could come up with more distinctions for my definition but I am a bit busy at the moment feel free to question me on other aspects of my definition that I have not touched upon.



Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?

Some states are certainly more successful then others, and many states are regards as the least worst alternative by the people they govern. It seems to me you are talking about diffirences between states, not fundamental features of them. The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.
1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.

If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.

EDIT: I am not arguing that (1) implies it converse, the opposite of (3), I know this is a fallacy. I am personally stating (3) (not as a consequence of (1), but for the sake of this argument I will discount (3) for the time being.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some states are certainly more successful then others, and many states are regards as the least worst alternative by the people they govern. It seems to me you are talking about diffirences between states, not fundamental features of them.

The list of criteria that I provided are not meant to be differences but fundamental features. Such a massive and distinct entity as a state/government is complex and in my opinion requires multiple necessary features for definition. Some may or may not be able to be dropped but then they would, in my estimation, be considered exceptional. The rest of my post was a partial attempt at explaining my rationale for the applicability of these features.

The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.

I would have to disagree. The most fundamental necessity for a government to impose and enforce a social contract is the support of a significantly numerous or influential portion of its citizens. Without this it is just a gang bullying a community (that is a separate construct from the community rather than a niche within it as a government is) and will eventually disintegrate.

I would also contend that the imposition and enforcement of rules are only a single function of government and that other functions, such as representation of its constituents, are equally fundamental to a government.

1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.

If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.

EDIT: I am not arguing that (1) implies it converse, the opposite of (3), I know this is a fallacy. I am personally stating (3) (not as a consequence of (1), but for the sake of this argument I will discount (3) for the time being.

This is the fundamental flaw of the definition. 'Organized exercise of force' describes far more than just government and I would argue that most organized exercises of force are not what would be defined as government. So either this definition is too simple and vague to be useful or you are expanding the definition of state/government to include several other distinct phenomenon (including such things as mobs of angry football fans) which are generally not included under the umbrella of the terms state or government again making the definition less than useful.

To reiterate...

[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract.

.. is my definition. I will leave this for you to question if you like instead of writing an essay.

 

[Galteeth]

"[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract."

Historically, most governments did not have the idea of a social contract. Under this definition, for example, the kingdoms that were based on the divine right of kings would not be considered government.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

"[A] sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract."

Historically, most governments did not have the idea of a social contract. Under this definition, for example, the kingdoms that were based on the divine right of kings would not be considered government.

I am using 'social contract' in a broad and generalized way to include unwritten laws or rules of conduct as well as those of a religious or superstitious origin. If a kings subjects (constituents) believe he is the divine seat of righteousness and so follow him for that reason that is a form of social contract. It is an agreement (however informal) between individuals to accept a certain order of things.

 

[Galteeth]

I am using 'social contract' in a broad and generalized way to include unwritten laws or rules of conduct as well as those of a religious or superstitious origin. If a kings subjects (constituents) believe he is the divine seat of righteousness and so follow him for that reason that is a form of social contract. It is an agreement (however informal) between individuals to accept a certain order of things.

But this case does not necessitate the subjects' acceptance of the justification, only that the king has command of sufficient force to impose rule. In the case of kings, the justification or contract was made subsequent to the orginal monarch's acquisition of power. In other words, kings did not convince their subjects that they were divinely chosen and then acquired power, the acquisition of power was seen as proof of divine ordinance.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But this case does not necessitate the subjects' acceptance of the justification, only that the king has command of sufficient force to impose rule. In the case of kings, the justification or contract was made subsequent to the orginal monarch's acquisition of power. In other words, kings did not convince their subjects that they were divinely chosen and then acquired power, the acquisition of power was seen as proof of divine ordinance.

And that would be the social contract at work. It is believed that there is to be a king and that the king ascends to power in a certain fashion. If this person ascended to power in a fashion acceptable to the people they will then follow him. A man may take the throne by force, dethroning the previous king, but this was as well generally considered an acceptable fashion to obtain a throne in most circumstances.

The king also requires backing and the confidence of others through some form of contract to obtain the force necessary to take a throne.

 

[Galteeth]

And that would be the social contract at work. It is believed that there is to be a king and that the king ascends to power in a certain fashion. If this person ascended to power in a fashion acceptable to the people they will then follow him. A man may take the throne by force, dethroning the previous king, but this was as well generally considered an acceptable fashion to obtain a throne in most circumstances.

The king also requires backing and the confidence of others through some form of contract to obtain the force necessary to take a throne.

Ok, I kind of feel like were going around in circles here, but that definition of social contract is so loose as to apply to any group that uses force and subsequently justifies their actions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ok, I kind of feel like were going around in circles here, but that definition of social contract is so loose as to apply to any group that uses force and subsequently justifies their actions.

I'm not sure what you mean. The only definition I have ever seen for 'social contract' is as a broad abstract term to describe the manner in which people agree to live and work together. That does not necessarily mean that it is a fair one or that all parties involved have an equal say. The social contract in a monarchy in a nut shell is that there is to be a monarch and the monarch is the source of law. There is more to it than that but as far as the structure of government goes that's about it. Its obviously a fairly primitive form of state.

 

[jambaugh]

I define the state as a sort of social construct. It is a sizable nontransitory and organized group of people generally living in a fix territory working together for their mutual benefit with a sovereign authority over themselves and an agreed upon social contract. And I would define a government as the structure of organization to said state and its social contract. The primary authority of a government comes from the support of its people rather than the exercise of violence though in many instances through history support from only a minority was necessary to establish a state and government.

You describe aspects of a form of government. The Irish during the famine years of the 19th century had no "social contract" with the ruling British. There was no consent of the governed yet they were governed. Again I argue that consent of the governed is not necessary for government to be defined. It rather is a criterion for legitimacy in government for someone valuing free government. Again a quality of type not of definition.

I have always had a problem with the "social contract" idea (though I see it as far superior to e.g. divine right of kings) in that a contract by definition presupposes a free choice. I, born into the State in which I am living, had no choice as to its form. Fortunately for me those who set it up did give me some small control over its future form but I alone have no power to rebel. I can at best choose exile from my home. The social contract idea is at best a polar ideal (like anarchy) defining an axis along which we may order governments in classifying them but not something that can be fully actualized. Ultimately we cannot renegotiate government for each individual born and as each day passes.

Finally those who "reject the social contract" are still subject to the force exercised by those who form the government. Heinlein painted a pretty good picture of the maximum actualization of the "social contract" idea in his Coventry short story. Even when exile is the only punishment it must be enforced. The process of this enforcement, adjudicating upon whom it is to be enforced and when and why, the actual implementation, that defines the government.

Government is not an object it is a process. It is not defined by its form but by its function. The function of government is to selectively apply coercive force upon individuals to make them behave in a certain way (lawfully).

Again I challenge you... state an action of government which is not a coercive act at some level? I can find examples but they are meaningless acts such as congressional "non-binding resolutions" or "bully pulpit" calls to action on the part of private citizens and ultimately meaningful only because those individuals so acting have celebrity status by virtue of being in a position to exercise force.

Even a totalitarian government that rules mostly by force must have support of some portion of the people or it will be overthrown, which is what happens to most primitive totalitarian states.

But of course it needn't be supported by all. Those who do not support it are still subject to it. One ruthless man with an ultimate weapon is sufficient to support a tyranny. Such parsing is just a question of who holds the power and thus has the ability to grant authority. Again all this is a function of the use of coercive force. A village can through numbers tar and feather the individual. A warrior can tyrannize a village of peasants. The common denominator is who uses force and thus who is able to decide on its "authorized use". The implied context of "authorized use of force" is the existence of a background government which punishes unauthorized use by virtue of its superior ability to apply force. I can state that "I do not authorize the US Federal government to tax my income." That is meaningless until I have the power to use force superior to that of the Federal government.

In fact we can see from history that most states that ruled primarily by violence and force without significant support from its citizens were highly unstable and unsuccessful at maintaining power. Yet another reason why defining government as the exercise of violence does not seem very logical.

Break up your statement. I assert all states "rule by violence and force." There's no "primarily" too it. The question of "support from its citizens" is a question of form. Who says a government must be stable to be defined as a government.

I don't disagree totally with your thesis but I think once you agree with me as to the definition of government as the coordinated use of force (both active violence and its explicit or implicit threat) then we can begin to make progress arguing as to the "best" form of government in terms of stability and benefit to individuals under its rule. You imply by virtue of appealing to "the consent of the governed" that in the absence of this consent there will be... "revolt"? Does then the government not in is failure to sustain itself at least try to suppress such revolution with force of arms? Typically in the "bloodless coupe" it is the army that finally rejects the dictates of the tyrant and it is They who thus decide the issue because it is only through them that the tyrants govern because government is the coordinated use of force and without the wielders of guns there is no government.

There are many types of social constructs and many of them utilize violence as well. Not all social constructs would be rightly labeled as states. One of the issues of definition here seems to be size and scope. Galteeth mentions the idea of a single man wielding violence to his own ends as being a form of 'state' or 'government'. I would have to disagree. While there may be no specific number for delineation between what is and is not a state we would generally not refer to two persons where one rules over the other as a state. They may even fit all of the criteria as I defined above (excepting the 'sizable' criteria) but we still do not consider them a state. Just as we generally do not call two people a 'gang' or a 'mob' and have no strict numerical criteria for defining either of these other than that they are significantly numerous.

Understood. Like anarchy such is a polar extreme, yet again in the case of two men on a desert island if you wish to define "government" at all it must be defined at the point where conflict arises with the potential for violence. One may expect the weaker man to defer to the stronger and then hope that the stronger will grant equality to the weaker. There is always the possibility of enslavement, rebellion, war. Whether these are rational outcomes is another question but we are fools to assume all men behave rationally. From three to three hundred there is some equilibrium reached where some agree to use force to make all abide by some set of rules.

Is it not applicable to call Robinson Crusoe's mastery over Friday a "government" with Crusoe as King? He even invokes "divine right" but mainly his reign was a function of his munitions. You needn't call this government but it is the seed out of which the oak grows. People have conflicting interests which ultimately are settled by violence if no compromise is found. Even in the absence of overt violence its threat is always in the background of the negotiation to compromise. This is always in the background of any "social contract" and the ultimate aim of forming such a contract...but then the contract must be enforced.

Also some seem to be loosely defining a gang or mafia to be something like a state. They are social constructs as well and so share similar characteristics to a state or government but violate certain criteria. For one gangs and mafia are generally not a sovereign authority.

When police fear to travel in a gang controlled neighborhood would you not say they reign sovereign over that neighborhood? Has not the, elsewhere sovereign, government then abdicated its sovereignty for a time over that region? Isn't that the whole point of gang markings? To establish the domains of the territory over which they assert their sovereignty? Take the jailhouse gang. Why, if the warden holds "sovereignty", is it that the new prisoner feels compelled to join a gang? Because the gangs by virtue of their ruthlessness have more power of life and death over the prisoner than does the warden. It is the gangs who rule the prison yard beyond the scope of the guards duties to prevent escape and overt mass violence. The new prisoner joins one gang to be protected from violation by other inmates. The gang serves as a syndicate form of government within the domain it is allowed( by the impotence or legal restrictions of the warden to control absolutely the lives and behavior of the imprisoned.) Not an ideal government but I say no less a government than the one which forces them to live in the prison. There are leaders and warriors and rules and consequences for when those rules are broken. The ultimate prison crime is to rat on a fellow inmate. That's law in effect. The punishment is generally execution. Without the punishment the law is meaningless.

And does your requirement of sovereign authority then preclude state and local governments as being "governments" in the US since the Federal Govt. has final sovereignty?

I assert that you can identify the Governments by their logo on the uniform of enforcement officers. They are the guys with guns on their belts. In the case of a gang it is their markings and colors and the guns are under their shirts.

They are also generally separate from the community in which operate having a smaller scale social structure of their own.

A better description of Washington (inside the beltway) I have not seen! But I disagree with regard to gangs and mobs. They are generally intimately involved in the community (though generally not in a positive way).

Yet we generally do not consider humans to be primarily or exclusively defined by the drinking of water.
...
My only contention is the exercise of violence as a primary definition of government. And the part which you responded was really in response to the scenario of humans not being capable of violence. Would you believe that the government and state could not exist if humans were incapable of violence?

It is a defining characteristic and I would say no, it is not possible to define government or State in the absence of human ability to do violence. But that's so far off the scale of possibility that it is not useful even for definitional purposes.

People without the power to do violence cannot have the power to function in any capacity. Any tool is also a perfectly good weapon.

People without the whit to do violence cannot function. The man incapable of conceiving of the effect of a hammer on someone's head cannot conceive of the effect of a hammer on a nail.

Finally the man without the will to do violence cannot function as he is subject to the tyranny of the child, the insane, the unscrupulous or subject to the hunger of the lions, tigers, and bears.

(You should read "The Warriors" a short story by Larry Niven.)

 

[jambaugh]

The point was more so that all laws or rules decreed by states or governments are ultimately backed by force. An entity that created rules that did not have the threat of force to back them up would not fall into the category of state and government. In this way,use of force is the defining characteristic of a state.
1. All governments use force.
2. Some governments have other features.
You could argue 3., not every person or persons who use force can be considered government.

If so, what are other fundametal characteristics that define government besides (1) to delineate between government and not-government? Someone earlier on suggested some ideas, such as full sovereignty, but I pointed out some problems with those definitions. You are correct that in the social construct sense, most people don't think of all use of force as government. I am arguing that these are fuzzy definitions.

Well stated. Let's try to pin down 3. Clearly a mad man on a rampage is not "government".
I've always qualified "coordinated use" and still my definition may lack some further qualification. Let me try again and see if you can play devil's advocate help me refine it.

Definition: Governing occurs when one individual or group coerces another to act within constraints that the coerced individual would not in general otherwise respect and would otherwise have the power to exceed.

Thus we define: A government is any organization whose function is to govern as defined above. or simply as the process of governing.

I think I have not emphasized the coercion enough and the violence too much. Killing people who refuse to commit suicide is not governing it is slaughter. It is when people abide by rules due to consequences ultimately resulting in violence that governing does occur. It is then the nature of those constraints being placed, how many, how they are decided and enforced that we use to qualify types and forms of governments.

The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering. In the case currently being debated, Health Care Reform, we should always keep the coercive nature of government conscious in our minds. To what extent do we need to and to what extent are we justified in, applying coercion in the domain of the practice of medicine?

That of course is an open question with different answers depending on one's political beliefs. But the underlying coercion at the heart of every government act is, not a question of opinion or relative to one's beliefs but rather an objective fact.

 

[jambaugh]

I think I've presented my position to sufficient degree that anyone can anticipate my further arguments so I'll leave it at that. I'll keep reading but I think my posts are getting too redundant.

 

[Al68]

The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering.

I think you also just pegged the reason many don't want to acknowledge it. No one wants to say the words "I advocate using force to coerce others to do what I want" when they know they can just write a bill that does just that, advocate it, pass it, all without ever having any discussion about whether coercion is justified.

The current health care proposal is a great example. Advocates aren't defending the use of aggressive force to coerce peaceful citizens into doing what they wouldn't do voluntarily, because they know they don't have to. All they have to do is convince enough voters that "we're on your side, trust us", and they can use force to coerce people at will.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

People without the whit to do violence cannot function.

This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.

 

[Galteeth]

Well stated. Let's try to pin down 3. Clearly a mad man on a rampage is not "government".
I've always qualified "coordinated use" and still my definition may lack some further qualification. Let me try again and see if you can play devil's advocate help me refine it.

Definition: Governing occurs when one individual or group coerces another to act within constraints that the coerced individual would not in general otherwise respect and would otherwise have the power to exceed.

Thus we define: A government is any organization whose function is to govern as defined above. or simply as the process of governing.

I think I have not emphasized the coercion enough and the violence too much. Killing people who refuse to commit suicide is not governing it is slaughter. It is when people abide by rules due to consequences ultimately resulting in violence that governing does occur. It is then the nature of those constraints being placed, how many, how they are decided and enforced that we use to qualify types and forms of governments.

The reason I keep harping on this fundamentally coercive nature of government is that it puts a much higher burden on the justification of utilizing government as a means of say social engineering. In the case currently being debated, Health Care Reform, we should always keep the coercive nature of government conscious in our minds. To what extent do we need to and to what extent are we justified in, applying coercion in the domain of the practice of medicine?

That of course is an open question with different answers depending on one's political beliefs. But the underlying coercion at the heart of every government act is, not a question of opinion or relative to one's beliefs but rather an objective fact.

I think the difference in our points of view come from different goals. I see anarchism as primarily an ethical system as opposed to a political one.
In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose. Barring someone who is actually delusional, murder will always seem to serve some purpose, even if it is simply the purpose of eliminating people. Genocides are the act of governments, and may be seen to have some broader purpose in the minds of the murderers.

One could make the argument that one who kills purely for personal pleasure is not acting as a government, since the benefit is solely to the murderer. However, this then implies that a quality of government must be of benefit to more then one person, which I do not agree with. In an ethical anarchist framework, any act of violence can be defined as government. For a somewhat more traditional view, we could look at the motivation of the violence as a factor. This heads into difficult territory, as a line must be somewhat arbitrarily drawn at some point to delineate between what degree and types of motivation are necessary to constitute government. In the very basic example of control of resources, the benefit may simply be an economic one to the members of the government who want a particular resource (think warrior tribes or slave masters). Polar extremes are good way to think of this. The further you get from the polar extreme of a sole man killing for pleasure, the fuzzier what is and is not a government becomes until we reach some threshold, principally of size and organization, where most agree that a government has been established.

On the other hand, what is or is not a violent or coercive act is very easy to define.

 

[Galteeth]

This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.

My hypothetical example of people "clock-worked orange" into not being able to do violence (specifically human violence) was meant to be a counter-argument to the claim that violence is necessary for society. I argued that violence was only necessary to counter violence or its potential.
Someone else asked a question about propery. I argue that if violence truly became impossible (but everything else was the same) while there would still be some who would steal, the majority would not. This isn't even particularly important to the point I was trying to make, since such a situation was impossible.
In response to the question "How could anarchy work?" my answer is if everyone is an anarchist. This does not mean that people have to be identical, or even have the same values, just that they would need to agree on a few fundamental rules that were imposed by voluntary self-restraint. In other words, a society that functioned without violence can be envisioned. Or to put it another way, society, in the absence of violence, is capable of organizing itself without violence. People say this will never happen. I agree, it seems unlikely in the immediate future. But this does not ethically invalidate the premise. People consider murder to be wrong, but acknowledge that it will exist. This is what I mean by anarchism as more so an ethical philosophy. Refusing to govern others, and to the extent possible, support the governing of others. Contrary to the early posts, i don't see this as an inconsistent position.

 

[mihna]

This is an oversimplification. Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society without a centralized monopoly of violence. There can certainly be voluntary political order in an anarchist society.

So, would an anarchist society abdicate the right to wage war a la Japan? Would this position involve total pacifism or would militias with no central authority be allowed for self-defense?

 

[Galteeth]

So, would an anarchist society abdicate the right to wage war a la Japan? Would this position involve total pacifism or would militias with no central authority be allowed for self-defense?

Your're going to have to narrow that down to a specific anarchist ideology to get a meaningful answer. As came up in previous posts, there are a number of different anarchist ideologies, all of which look different.

 

[mihna]

Your're going to have to narrow that down to a specific anarchist ideology to get a meaningful answer. As came up in previous posts, there are a number of different anarchist ideologies, all of which look different.

I'll look into it, thank you. The distinction between giving up political order and a centralized agent of violence is very interesting and has forced me to question my current stance on anarchy.

 

[jambaugh]

This right here will be the undoing of our entire discussion. If you truly believe this then we have a rather fundamental difference in understanding of the human condition and will never get anywhere.

Firstly I misspelled and should have written "wit" instead of "whit" i.e. mental faculty rather than "smallest part". I beg your pardon.

The wit to do violence is as I intended it, not being so dumb as to be unable to conceive of violent effect of an action. Without the "wit to do violence" intentionally one cannot foresee consequences enough to avoid accidental violence. (The proverbial child with the loaded gun scenario.)

If you truly cannot agree that such level of awareness of consequence is necessary to survive than indeed we cannot proceed.

 

[jambaugh]

...In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose. ...

I was more concerned with the effect of violence on the "victim". I am not governed by being murdered. I am governed e.g. by being given the restricted choice of picking cotton for someone else or being murdered, (or in a more benign case of stopping at a stop sign or risking the fine if I'm caught running it or being arrested if I refuse the fine or being physically subdued and likely harmed if I refuse to "come along quietly".)

Hence the executioner killing a man because he broke a capital law is effecting government while the man exterminating a person is not. Ethics aside the executioner is simply backing up the threat whose purpose is to affect behavior while the exterminator could care less about the behavior of those he exterminates.

The execution is part of a process of governance while the extermination is not as such. Similarly with the policeman using his baton to subdue a fellow resisting arrest vs the policeman beating a man with his baton out of malice i.e. with the primary goal to injure.

In this I am qualifying my earlier definition in saying not violence per se(coordinated or random) but coercion and the violent consequence behind that coercion is the defining characteristic of governance. One may argue forms but the act is the act. The rapist threatening the victim with a beating if they don't "shut up and take it" is governing the victim thereby. Not the rape but the threat of the beating and the execution of that threat if the victim does resist.

 

[Galteeth]

I was more concerned with the effect of violence on the "victim". I am not governed by being murdered. I am governed e.g. by being given the restricted choice of picking cotton for someone else or being murdered, (or in a more benign case of stopping at a stop sign or risking the fine if I'm caught running it or being arrested if I refuse the fine or being physically subdued and likely harmed if I refuse to "come along quietly".)

Hence the executioner killing a man because he broke a capital law is effecting government while the man exterminating a person is not. Ethics aside the executioner is simply backing up the threat whose purpose is to affect behavior while the exterminator could care less about the behavior of those he exterminates.

The execution is part of a process of governance while the extermination is not as such. Similarly with the policeman using his baton to subdue a fellow resisting arrest vs the policeman beating a man with his baton out of malice i.e. with the primary goal to injure.

In this I am qualifying my earlier definition in saying not violence per se(coordinated or random) but coercion and the violent consequence behind that coercion is the defining characteristic of governance. One may argue forms but the act is the act. The rapist threatening the victim with a beating if they don't "shut up and take it" is governing the victim thereby. Not the rape but the threat of the beating and the execution of that threat if the victim does resist.

But what about instances of systematic genocides?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I see anarchism as primarily an ethical system as opposed to a political one. In this sense, a man on a mad rampage is not ethically different then a man killing for some purpose.

So a man who kills in self defense is no different from a man who kills to take someones property?

One could make the argument that one who kills purely for personal pleasure is not acting as a government, since the benefit is solely to the murderer. However, this then implies that a quality of government must be of benefit to more then one person, which I do not agree with. In an ethical anarchist framework, any act of violence can be defined as government. For a somewhat more traditional view, we could look at the motivation of the violence as a factor. This heads into difficult territory, as a line must be somewhat arbitrarily drawn at some point to delineate between what degree and types of motivation are necessary to constitute government. In the very basic example of control of resources, the benefit may simply be an economic one to the members of the government who want a particular resource (think warrior tribes or slave masters).

Again, this whole definition broadens from the traditional definition to such an absurd degree as to be very nearly useless. If I beat a stranger and take their money I have 'governed' them? That's rather ridiculous don't you think?

Polar extremes are good way to think of this. The further you get from the polar extreme of a sole man killing for pleasure, the fuzzier what is and is not a government becomes until we reach some threshold, principally of size and organization, where most agree that a government has been established.

On the other hand, what is or is not a violent or coercive act is very easy to define.

The notion of government is a complex thing. There are no simple and clear cut ways to define it. When you treat complex phenomena as though they are simple you lose perspective and your ability to work with these phenomena will be limited by the simplicity of your approach to them.

My hypothetical example of people "clock-worked orange" into not being able to do violence (specifically human violence) was meant to be a counter-argument to the claim that violence is necessary for society. I argued that violence was only necessary to counter violence or its potential.

I am fairly certain I understood your point even if I disagreed with your conclusions which seemed to be there could not be any such thing as government in such a scenario.
I was referring specifically to my discussion with Jambaugh.

Firstly I misspelled and should have written "wit" instead of "whit" i.e. mental faculty rather than "smallest part". I beg your pardon.

The wit to do violence is as I intended it, not being so dumb as to be unable to conceive of violent effect of an action. Without the "wit to do violence" intentionally one cannot foresee consequences enough to avoid accidental violence. (The proverbial child with the loaded gun scenario.)

If you truly cannot agree that such level of awareness of consequence is necessary to survive than indeed we cannot proceed.

I was not responding to your misspelling and understood that you meant wit. It was other parts of your post that I was responding to but I felt that particular sentence summed it up instead of quoting the entire post. Perhaps the hammer bit would have been better. It seemed to me that you were indicating a belief that humans could not function without the ability to commit violence. Specifically you expressed the belief that if a person could not conceive of hitting someone over the head with a hammer they could not conceive of hitting nails with a hammer. This gave me the impression that you feel violence and the will to do violence is so inherent to survival as to be part of almost any everyday task.
Perhaps though you were simply taking my words out of context and to an extreme. I was referring to Galteeth's idea of people being programmed to have such a visceral response to the idea of doing violence to another human so as to be unable to commit violence to one another.

Personally I believe that we would still find some means of government and even believe that most of the ways in which government preserve the common social contract are through nonviolent methods. I am pretty sure from your posts so far that you disagree with the later but I can not imagine someone disagreeing with the former. Maybe you do but I find it a very odd idea.

So if I have misinterpreted your response let me know. And if you are interested in my response to your earlier post regardless just let me know.