Think world wars would be prevented if had anarchy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter noblegas
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on whether anarchy could prevent large-scale wars like those of the 20th century. Proponents argue that without centralized governments forcing participation in conflicts, wars would be localized, reducing unnecessary casualties. Critics counter that an anarchic society could lead to constant local conflicts and question the feasibility of hiring protection in such a system. Historical examples are debated, with some suggesting that centralized states are more prone to violence and imperialism. Ultimately, the conversation reflects deep skepticism about the practicality and implications of anarchy as a governance model.
  • #61
Astronuc said:
Please provide an example of an anarchic state that was successful - and everyone was happy, content, well fed, and there was no violence - at least not from within the society.

I admit, I don't know of any at the top of my head. As I said numerous time already, I wasn't envisioning a utopian society, I was envisioning a society where you had complete control of your life, not the state and a society where you were not dragged into some war or forced to pay for it against your will through conscription/taxation that does not involved you at all. However, do you know of any society/countries ruled by a central government where there was not a tinge of corruption within that government regime and there was no call for any reforms or complete overthrows of the government and people where just content with their government since the formation of centrally controlled society from the far-reaches of a tribe;
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
noblegas said:
If you are talking about the US , we don't live in a democracy, we supposedly have constitutional republic as are form government . But in actuality, the creed laid out by the founding fathers is not being practiced very well where the federal government only intervenes in cases where there is an individuals or group of individuals are violating the property rights and liberty's of others. In many instances, the federal government has arrested people for not violating those basic rights; For heavensakes , we are supposedly the freest nation on the planet, yet , our nation has the highest prison population and we have a prison population where almost half of the prisoners are doing time for victimless crimes( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm ) and prison population exponential grew coincidally when the war on drug was conceived and implemented into public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg) even the violence has pretty much declined for the past 25 or so years;(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm); If you did not know the CIA has been responsible for participating acts of violence such as toppling regimes in various countries throughout the Middle East , Asia, and South/central america and reinstalling dictatorships who they believe will protect US interests; Where is it written in the US constitution that we toppled foreign regimes in foreign countries that don't attack ; and Don't get me started on Cointelpro(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro) and Jim Crow(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow);

You see, this are the number of regimes why I am not satisfied with our government currently; Governments may start out with the best of intentions, but history has shown time and time again that government will be corroded over time and political corrosion will eventually create poliltical corruption and many cases , political oppressions;

Your post demonstrates violent offenders as a % of the prison population has risen, and drug offenses are down.

"Percent of sentenced
State inmates
1995 2005
Total 100 % 100 %
Violent 47 53
Property 23 19
Drug 22 20
Public-order 9 8 "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
WhoWee said:
Your post demonstrates violent offenders as a % of the prison population has risen, and drug offenses are down.

"Percent of sentenced
State inmates
1995 2005
Total 100 % 100 %
Violent 47 53
Property 23 19
Drug 22 20
Public-order 9 8 "
For some reason, my link for homicide rate did not load properly;http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
In order for a reasonable discussion on this topic to ensue, you have to pin down a precise definition of anarchy. Very few (if any) anarchists define anarchy in the sense the majority of posters seem to be using the word.

There is a list on wikipedia chronicling societies that have been anarchies under some definitions or had anarchistic features.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
 
  • #65
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

* Main Entry: an·ar·chy
* Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
* Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
 
  • #66
Those dictionary definitions are all somewhat different. Furthermore, they contain terms that are vague. How does one, for example, define government? I could easily argue that Somalia does not qualify as anarchy since its condition is not an absence of government, but rather, an adundance of small competing governments.

Or take authority. The definition of this is argued amongst different anarchist camps, and the meaning one derives will likely determine which "niche" of anarchist one is (assuming one defines oneself as an anarchist). Here is an example of one point of view (inclusive) in regards to definitions of anarchism.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6

And here is the opposite point of view (exclusive).

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Galteeth said:
Those dictionary definitions are all somewhat different. Furthermore, they contain terms that are vague. How does one, for example, define government? I could easily argue that Somalia does not qualify as anarchy since its condition is not an absence of government, but rather, an adundance of small competing governments.

Or take authority. The definition of this is argued amongst different anarchist camps, and the meaning one derives will likely determine which "niche" of anarchist one is (assuming one defines oneself as an anarchist). Here is an example of one point of view (inclusive) in regards to definitions of anarchism.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6

And here is the opposite point of view (exclusive).

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html

Thats a very good point. Just like the red and white armies after the russian revolution and up until the soviet union , small regimes compete to filled in the vacuum until at least one of them is more successful than all of the other competing regimes; I think this has been one of the main reasons anarchy has not been a successful theory in practice; I think for a true anarchy to exist, then all humans would desired for a system of self-governance and no desired to try to control the lives of there fellow man; But is such mode of thinking possible to carry out in practice? Perhaps we could eliminate are desired to control the lives of other on a conscious and subconsciouslevel just like we've eliminated cannabalism throughout most of western society;
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
@noblegas:

I agree, and I'm a self-defined anarchist. I see it more as a personal moral code then an overarching system.

Sort of like how one might think murder is wrong, but acknowledge that murder will still take place.
 
  • #69
Galteeth said:
@noblegas:

I agree, and I'm a self-defined anarchist. I see it more as a personal moral code then an overarching system.

Sort of like how one might think murder is wrong, but acknowledge that murder will still take place.

Does a "self-defined anarchist" have a drivers license, license plates, car insurance, social security card, Deed or lease agreement, mortgage, life insurance, debit card, FDIC insured bank accounts, credit cards, draft registration, mailing address, health insurance or public assistance of any type, school loans, diplomas, utility services, shop at grocery stores, or hold a job - have an internet account?

If the "self-defined anarchist" has more than 2 or 3 of the above mentioned, I'd like to read their "definition".
 
  • #70
WhoWee said:
Does a "self-defined anarchist" have a drivers license, license plates, car insurance, social security card, Deed or lease agreement, mortgage, life insurance, debit card, FDIC insured bank accounts, credit cards, draft registration, mailing address, health insurance or public assistance of any type, school loans, diplomas, utility services, shop at grocery stores, or hold a job - have an internet account?

If the "self-defined anarchist" has more than 2 or 3 of the above mentioned, I'd like to read their "definition".

Why did you include an internet account, health insurance, credit cards and grocery stores in this group? Some of those categories are supplied by private institutions; A person can be an anarchist in the philosophical sense but still live in a world where anarchy is not promoted if he has no choice but to adapt to the given conditions within his environment; There were communists and socialists roaming around in czarist Russia before the Russian revolution ;
 
  • #71
noblegas said:
Why did you include an internet account, health insurance, credit cards and grocery stores in this group? Some of those categories are supplied by private institutions; A person can be an anarchist in the philosophical sense but still live in a world where anarchy is not promoted if he has no choice but to adapt to the given conditions within his environment; There were communists and socialists roaming around in czarist Russia before the Russian revolution ;

Do you honestly believe the internet, the electrical grid, hospital systems, a banking system and a distribution system (trucks and highways) would exist under anarchy?

You sound like Obama telling us that insuring 46,000,000 additional people will save money.

A person who contemplates in a philosophical world often faces difficulties adapting the ideals to the real world.
 
  • #72
Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Galteeth said:
Well WhoWe, to answer your question, I have some of those things. I look at anarchist morality as being roughly equivalent to a philosophy of non-violence. So i try not to use violence or support violence, as much as possible.
There are of course compromises one has to make. I obviously pay some tax. I tend to think of it on a very local scale anyway. (For example, there was a dispute at the gas station the other day where i was severely overcharged, and during the subsequent argument, was assaulted by the attendant. Now, if I had called the police, I probably would have "gotten what I wanted" in so far as my money back, but since it wasn't a life-threatening situation, it seemed immoral to me to resort to violence to solve the problem.)

It seems you are suggesting that any philosophy or morality that is not currently one hundred percent applicable and "pure" in all situations is invalid. One can, for example be an environmentalist who is concerned (morally) about climate change, but still have a carbon footprint. The example of non-violence is probably a bit more absolute, but the definition of "supporting " violence, or institutions that lead to violence, can begin to get a bit abstract and impractical given the reality of a violent society. For example, let's say i buy a product. I am giving money to the company that produced it. Do I suspect that these producers have never used violence (or more specifically state power)? No, i don't and when possible i try to support small business and local prodcution. That said, I'll still eat corn that was grown with government subsidies.

For my own purposes, I tend to focus more on the act (or the immediate threat) of violence as oppossed to its consequences.



As far as your question regarding the internet and such, to me that question basically reduces to "Could the internet exist without violence?" I say of course it could.

Now if you want to start talking about whether violence is the most efficient means to organize society (i.e. you could claim that a society that wasn't organized by violence would never spontaneously produce an internet) we can start discussing objective things instead of moral values.

Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?
 
  • #74
WhoWee said:
Your definition of anarchy is non-violence?

Also, calling the Police because you were robbed and assaulted would have been a violent act?

Yes to both.

On the second one, self-defense is also a violent act, but one I find acceptable. It all comes down to personal value judgements. If someone assaults me, I don't retaliate after the fact.
 
  • #75
I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
 
  • #76
WhoWee said:
I have another definition for you to consider.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifist

* Main Entry: pac·i·fist
* Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\
* Variant(s): or pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\
* Function: adjective
* Date: 1908

1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists
2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

— pac·i·fis·ti·cal·ly \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


I think the two are closely related.
 
  • #77
Galteeth said:
I think the two are closely related.
Not by definition or in practice.
 
  • #78
noblegas said:
I admit, I don't know of any at the top of my head. As I said numerous time already, I wasn't envisioning a utopian society, I was envisioning a society where you had complete control of your life, not the state and a society where you were not dragged into some war or forced to pay for it against your will through conscription/taxation that does not involved you at all. However, do you know of any society/countries ruled by a central government where there was not a tinge of corruption within that government regime and there was no call for any reforms or complete overthrows of the government and people where just content with their government since the formation of centrally controlled society from the far-reaches of a tribe;
I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.

Perhaps remote tribes in New Guinea, Australia, S. Asia, S. America or Africa might be as close to anarchy as one would find. But many primitive tribes eventually collided over territory or resources.

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

There are also examples of societies in which the group can collectively decide to sanction a member who misbehaves. Is this allowed under the definition of anarchy?
 
  • #79
Nah, Astronuc.

Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation..
 
  • #80
arildno said:
Anarchy arrives, in its most beautous form, when each individual becomes a law giver and law enforcer in his own right, especially in wielding sanctioning power against the miscreants of his own designation..
People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:
  • Trustworthy,
  • Loyal,
  • Helpful,
  • Friendly,
  • Courteous,
  • Kind,
  • Obedient,
  • Cheerful,
  • Thrifty,
  • Brave,
  • Clean,
  • and Reverent.

:biggrin:
 
  • #81
Astronuc said:
I don't know of anyone who is complete control of one's life. Nature can be pretty harsh sometimes.

It was not my intention to imply that if one living within an absolute free society, one person alone had to gather all the goods and services he considered essential to her survival. Since most natural resources are in finite quantities, some people or groups of people will have easier access to one particular natural resource than other groups of people; I would still advocate free trade under this society; What I don't advocate is coercion, i.e. people being forced to pay for institutions like, healthcare, education, roads, Israel's healthcare , etc especially if they do not considered it essential for their own personal survival; When I say I want a person to have complete control over their own life, I am explicitly talking about being able to have full reign over deciding if you want to be of assistance to a person or if you don't that person to have assistance and them to be completely self-reliant;

Humans formed groups for mutual benefit, but then they had to deal with members of the group wanting to dominate. In some cases, elders were sought out to mediate disputes which seem inevitable to human populations. If the elders are simply comfortable to resolve conflicts and nothing more, that's probably as close as one comes to an anarchic society (based on the definition of anarchy inferring the absence of government).

Totally agree.Only I want humans to form groups naturally to form economic and social relationships and resolve their dispute own their own or have a third party to come into assist the two persons who are disputing each other. Government today stills acts as that dominate force you are referring to when you were talking about the third party group that wants to take control of the smaller tribe in tribal communities; The government may prevent us from violently attack one another, at least on the surface, but we are still forced to financially support a number of goods and services the government considers "essential" or if you refuse to pay for the services you don't use, you will be arrested for "tax-evasion";
 
  • #82
Should it be allowed to coerce a coercer from using coercion in your paradise?
 
  • #83
Astronuc said:
People in the most beautious form do not lie, cheat, steal, or hurt or harm others - but rather are:
  • Trustworthy,
  • Loyal,
  • Helpful,
  • Friendly,
  • Courteous,
  • Kind,
  • Obedient,
  • Cheerful,
  • Thrifty,
  • Brave,
  • Clean,
  • and Reverent.

:biggrin:

Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power. :smile:
 
  • #84
Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

:smile:
 
  • #85
arildno said:
Furthermore, noblegas:

Do you feel a teensy weenie titillation at the prospect of DESTROYING the society actually around you, in order to allow your paradise to flourish?

:smile:

Again , I NEVER said that the stateless society I am envisioning would be a paradise; Trying to create a paradise is a pipe dream for the obvious reason of the many flaws that are characteristic of the human species,; The only paradise you would be able to create would be a paradise for AI machines that were designed to be morally superior to human beings; I would desire a stateless society , only for the sake of self-governance and for third parties not to be dragged into/ or forced to finance these conflicts that don't pertain to them; (US civil war, WW1, WW2, hundreds years war , vietnam war); Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets; Yes, Let's allow one person to have the potential to destroy and breakdown the society around them,i.e. hitler, mao-zetong, stalin, slaughtering of native americans by the US government(sarcasm) ;
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas. :smile:


Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets
Personally, I care more about personal liberty than security and safety nets





*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction[/size]
 
  • #87
arildno said:
Just cherishing the rare* flower your mindset is, noblegas. :smile:















*Due to inherent tendencies towards self-extinction[/size]


whats wrong with caring more about liberty than security? Its a personal preference; I think people should be in control of there own safety rather than someone else be in control of your own safety unless you want them to.
 
  • #88
Let the Baby Self-Help Brigade form!

Or what about the Granny Guard?
 
  • #89
It all comes down to can any group of humans get along. I think a lot of people can - certainly when they are friends. But how does one treat strangers?

I'll post later a paragraph I read last night. It's relevant to how societies evolve.
 
  • #90
ViewsofMars said:
Yes, that is a very nice list. I like it. However the word "obedient" at my age means being responsible for paying the bills on time.(tee hee)

I think a healthy frame of mind does unleash a feeling of hope and power. :smile:

I'd replace obedient with 'self-responsibility'.
 

Similar threads

Why is the consumer society dominating in today's world?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
How would an infection prevent anesthetic from numbing my toe?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
News Outrage Alive Today? Examining Daniel Ellsberg's Impact
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Sad adieu to Botanic Man, David Bellamy
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News THE CAUSES OF WAR What factors lead to the outbreak of war between nations?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Obsession: Islam's War Against The West
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
14K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K