News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[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).