News Without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable?

[ultimablah]

Would a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable? (eg. an anarchy?) Could people be happy without having to rely on a system that uses force to mandate policies? Would economics work? What problems would an anarchy have?

I was interested in this topic after writing an essay on the effects of government regulation, and a curious thought-experiment of a society without a government. I was curious on what your opinions and theories were.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

There would be an unstable power vacuum, and someone would rush in and become Despot. Most likely this someone would be whoever happened to have the most weapons at the time. It wouldn't be pretty.

Essentially, you can't have an anarchic society, because there are always people who want to control things, and they will take advantage of the situation.

 

[LowlyPion]

You might want to look at the Spanish Civil War.

http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/recommended-reading-the-spanish-civil-war/

 

[russ_watters]

You may want to research a good fraction of the countries in Africa. Somalia is one excellent example.

For the purpose of the paper, you should differentiate between "anarchy" and "anarchists". Anarchists aren't really after anarchy - what they are after looks a lot more like communism (but varies a lot). The label basically just means they are anti-existing government. I'd be very careful about using self-proclaimed "anarchists" as sources. There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

 

[LightbulbSun]

There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

 

[WarPhalange]

Anarchy works on the presumption that people are generally good and smart.

Neither of those is totally true and it takes a small minority of bad people to ruin a society, and enough stupid people and the entire society will collapse as well.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

See: difference between "anarchy" and "anarchists" and which one russ was referring to

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization.

Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something. It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away.

Without some centralization of power it seems to me that economics could not work the same way, no. There would be merchantile activity moving small amounts of good around and small-scale production of goods but commerce on a large scale simply wouldn't be possible, without roads, shipping facilities, etc. The business environment would be completely unstable, like in the 1980's China or in 1990's Russia where business was half-legal and half-illegal, so everyone at every point would always be squeezing a business enterprise and siphoning off whatever they could.

Famines and epidemics and environmental destruction would run rampant without any central authority to prepare for and prevent them. There are many problems that we just don't see and don't think about today because our society is geared towards having centralized authority and standardization. I mean, look at that cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe in the last few days.

Or, do you know how many diseases used to be spread entirely through food, because there were no centralized public health authorities until the 1910's - 1920's? You know how most people usually caught tuberculosis in the 19th century and before? From drinking milk. You'd drink a nice, tasty glass of fresh milk, and a few months later die because your lungs were filled with potato-like tumors. Bovine tuberculosis is communicable to humans. Even once they knew this was the cause it took decades to eradicate it because every U.S. state and European country had to form centralized health authorities that would force farmers to maintain proper sanitation and inoculate their cows for tuberculosis and other diseases.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary:

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness. I prefer it because it is a starting point for discussion, and used by Hobbes for that purpose. Any report on anarchy must start with Hobbes:

"during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
The entire book is available here and if it isn't required reading, it should be: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization.

Since they are largely developments of the same school of thought, yes.

Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something.

Stalin may have embraced industrialization, but that doesn't mean that he and Marx didn't still think industrialization was a major cause of the problems that communism was designed to fix. Communism most certainly was a reaction to the growing pains of the industrial revolution. Ie:

It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away.

Yep.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary: My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness.

Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed.

 

[ultimablah]

"Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed."

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

If people want something, they are willing to work for it or pay for it.
The simple premise is that people are greedy.

How is the philosophy flawed?

 

[jreelawg]

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

How is the philosophy flawed?

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship that would classify as a government.

 

[ultimablah]

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship would would essentially classify as a government.

Let me make absolutely sure: Your argument against anarchy is because you believe anarchy is unsustainable, and anarchy would collapse. Is this correct?

Just want to make sure so I can effectively argue against it.

How would the company with the most money get the most money? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people?

 

[jreelawg]

How would the company with the most money get the most money?

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

 

[ultimablah]

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed. Plus, it takes time and advertising to construct a military force; those who oppose you will not want to fund you, and those who think that even if they succeed, nothing guarantees that they will benefit will not fund you. Even the companies that fund you will face difficulties, because people would be alerted of such a military organizing, and people would want to be protected, and thus would willingly pay a company large sums of money to protect their way of life. The people would, of course, make sure that the company can not then turn around and use the resources to oppress the people after winning the war.

 

[jreelawg]

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try, and the most ruthless would most likely succeed.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly. In which case you would have essentially a Mafia run country, however, in a country of no law, the mafia would not be sufficient at protecting people from most criminal activity.

 

[ultimablah]

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly.

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot. They would have to be numerous enough in every form of production to be able to out-produce every other company combined, and with all people who do not like military conquests funding the other companies, the other companies could, quite probably, stop the military conquest. It's not just speed, it's also quantity. People would realize that if a dictatorship arose, their businesses, in all probability, would not exist, and peoples' livelihoods would, in all likeliness, not exist, and would strive to prevent it from arising.

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.

"You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch."
This is assuming they already have the power to force you to fund it. How do they gain the power to force you to fund it?

 

[jreelawg]

If that is the case, then why, in a world of governments trying to stop organized crime, is organized crime so big.

In Russia after the collapse of the USSR, the Mafias took over, and now control directly or indirectly 80% of Russia's banks. Mafias systematically extort and kill those who resist their control, and eventually the most ruthless rise to the top.

The mafia would own the companies, and they would protect their interests, which may be having a lot of people working for you, but it would no doubt be an ugly world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/russian_mafia/70095.stm

 

[jreelawg]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot.

Are you arguing a hypothetical where man started from scratch, like if a bunch of small children washed up on an island, or are you talking anarchy in modern society. Because the guns are already here and built, and the organized criminals already very powerful.

 

[jreelawg]

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.

So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."

 

[drankin]

Actually believing that anarchy would work is naive. If it could work it would have happened by now. The only places on Earth that do practice it in some fashion do not work at all. Somalia for example. To actually argue it as viable environment for civilization is amusing. Especially on this forum.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

As I said above I definitely think that Anarchism is a load of hooey. But an interesting thought occurred to me: what's the difference between believing that anarchy would magically make everything wonderful and fix all our problems and believing that free markets would magically make everything great and fix all our problems? It seems to me that free-marketeers are essentially the ideological descendants of Anarchists for the late 20th and 21st centuries.

(And before people pile on me with facts about the actual benefits of markets as a tool, I'm well acquainted with much of the mathematical, economics, and computer modeling research that demonstrates that. I'm talking about the people who think that markets can achieve miracles and that they're infallible, who think that the market should always run the show and so always respond to any cataclysmic debacles of markets like the current financial crisis by saying "The problem is that it wasn't free enough! If there only had been even less regulation and oversight everything would've worked out just fine!")

⚛​

 

[jreelawg]

A completely free market would pretty much be anarchy. Meaning if law enforcement, emergency services, military, education, etc were all private. There would be no reason for taxes, and what place would there be for government policy?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, this is awesome. I'm going to call all the free market guys "bomb-throwing Anarchists" now.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

Deregulation of the markets is what ultimately caused this financial mess. Let this be another exhibit to show to people why deregulation just doesn't work. I'm sure libertarians will find some excuse to save face though.

 

[ultimablah]

So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."

Which company? Whichever one you choose. Multiple companies would exist in competition.
You don't even have to choose any, which means that it's not mandatory; if you find that it is safer to not support (and be defended by) a power-hungry company rather than it is to support a power-hungry company, than you will not support it, and instead, you would be willing to pay for a company that you could trust. Since that demand would exist, most likely by many people who wanted safe protection, companies would arise to fill that demand, because people are greedy.

No "system" is perfect and infalliable, and to compare it to a utopia is folly. It simply would be better than the current system in place.

Lightbulbsun, I've heard that interesting tidbit that Obama threw out there. In what way, exactly, did deregulation cause the financial mess? What deregulation, specifically, caused the current crisis?

Drankin, no system has "worked" so far, so if any system could "work", it would have happened so far. And no, our representative republic has not worked.

A better question is, why should the market NOT run the show? What will allowing the market to run its own course cause? The market is a self-improving process, as would be shown if it were simply allowed to run. The market would recover, businesses would spring up that (if deregulation did cause the failure) would not make the same mistakes, and life would continue.

Hm, in response to the last point, let me ask a question; what protects people from the government they institute? What protects us from our government? If governments are suddenly destroyed, yes, there are power holes, which people will immediately try to fill with themselves out of greed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independant security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

 

[ultimablah]

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independant security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?

How can Mr. Smith afford his smithy even? People will have something whether that's some resources or a skill or what have you everyone will have something and some will have more than others even if they are not obscenely wealthy.

But on the capacity to afford armed men. A merchant may be able to afford, say, a hundred dollars to purchase a cheap weapon. Perhaps even five hundred to purchase a decent one. But can he weild it well? Can he police and run his shop simultaneously anyway? If he can't weild it well and won't be able to wander his shop brandishing it to discourage theivery what would be the point in spending even as little as a hundred dollars on this weapon? Why not just get a heavy stick for when he does happen to catch a theif? Or maybe he can more easily afford to pay Mr. Smith. Especially if Mr. Smith's men are more capable of discouraging and catching theives and vandals than the merchant with his hundred dollar gun under the counter. For a merchant "Loss Prevention" is the key to whether or not he can afford security. And if his customers feel more safe in his shop he will possibly even get a boost in business. The idea essentially is that the investment should make him money not cost him money. "Affordability" has to do with more than just having the resources, it also requires an ability to make the investment worth the cost.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are some good books I have read that, though they are fiction, deal with similar scenarios in interesting ways.

Tim Powers' book Dinner at Deviant's Palace takes place in a sort of post apocalyptic California. In this book a certain gentleman's family were capable of preserving the knowledge of how to produce liquor. They owned and ran an vineyard so they were capable of producing brandy. In hard times liquor sells very well and they made a killing. With their wealth they expanded production and procured more land. Eventually they got into banking and loans which resulted in a currency backed by brandy in denominations of gallons and 'fifths'.

Greg Bear's book Moving Mars revolves around Mars settlers and their political turmoils. When they first arrived on Mars they came in families, like early american settlers came to the west. Nominally the laws from the government on Earth were to be upheld but Mars was too far out of reach for them to actually be enforced. The harsh environment resulted in many families dying off and others fighting amongst each other for resources.
Those families that were lucky to have survived better than others began forming alliances with others nearby that they believed they could trust and helped them become stable. These turned into amalgams usually with a certain family who had prospered most, or simply been more politically savvy, at the top of the family hierarchy. They then began sending representatives to other amalgams of families to hash out treaties and trade agreements. Eventually it turned into a rather strongly entrenched syndicalist style government.

I don't believe necessarily that anarchy will result in dictatorship, social collapse, or any terrible outcome or disaster. I just don't think it will survive the natural tendency of people to collect, organize, and follow.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

There are some good books I have read that, though they are fiction, deal with similar scenarios in interesting ways.

Tim Powers' book Dinner at Deviant's Palace takes place in a sort of post apocalyptic California. In this book a certain gentleman's family were capable of preserving the knowledge of how to produce liquor. They owned and ran an vineyard so they were capable of producing brandy. In hard times liquor sells very well and they made a killing. With their wealth they expanded production and procured more land. Eventually they got into banking and loans which resulted in a currency backed by brandy in denominations of gallons and 'fifths'.

That's definitely fiction. Of all the technological advancements that might be lost, knowledge of how to make booze would be the last one to go.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

If people want something, they are willing to work for it or pay for it.
The simple premise is that people are greedy.

How is the philosophy flawed?

The philosophy is flawed because greedy people will not want to do all those thigns you just said. People will not fund fire departments and police departments and roads voluntarily. We don't have to theorize or philosophize about this: we already know it because it has been tried. This isn't theory, it's reality. Not even in small groups can you find enough agreeable people to do such things (unless ideology is the reason the group is formed). Talk to anyone who belongs to a condo association to hear about this fact of human nature in action.

One wonders how anarchists think we've arrived at the system of government we have today. For example, how do we know people won't build quality buildings if there were no building codes? Answer: for a hundred years, there were no building codes and people did not build quality buildings and as a result, a lot of people died in fires that consumed most of our major cities (among other problems).

If there is ever an example of Political Science really being a science and not a philosophy, this one is it. People call their ideas theories, then ignore the implications of what a theory is. They ignore the experimentation and falsification!

 

[jreelawg]

Even if secericorp. became large and powerful enough to privide semi decent protection, how would they decide what was criminal or not without laws. You could just as easily hire them to commit crimes for you as you could hire them to protect you. They would provide commando like support to whoever paid them.

Otherwise how would they be tried, in a private court where money decides the sentence. You would pay to have someone arrested and pay to have them sentenced. Would there be private jails, or none at all? Would you pay to have your offender incarcerated, or would all "crimes" mean a death sentence, torture or mutilation?

Without laws and a court, the word crime would have no meaning. Hired guns would be hired guns wether it was for protection or not.

Additionally, ownership would be a useless word without laws. Land would be not owned, but would be territory and goods the same. How would one claim their territory?

Just like to throw in that McCain is as much an Anarchist as Obama a socialist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Anarchy is a temporary phenomena. Heirarchy is always formed, even if it's subtle. Even between three friends, a heirarchy is established.

The heirarchy may rotate depending on the context and moods of everyone, of course. But the simple fact is that some people are more willing to do what they're told and other people are more satisfied telling people what to do. Eventually, an authority is established based on power and will. (If someone has power but no ambition, they easily lose their power to someone who has ambition, but no power, thus making someone with power and ambition.)

If you want to get down to it, heirarchy itself is likely formed out of greed. The rich land-owner and lawmakers of the mercantile age eventually realized that they were suffocating their own coffers by restricting trade. Adams, Hobbes, and Locke all showed how the government could profit from letting people own their stuff and making them feel more secure. So allowing more freedoms may have very well been a product of greed itself.

 

[jreelawg]

A prime example of Anarchy is the history of the Mongols. Watch the movie "Mongol", it is really good. They had clans and warlords, and looting was a way life. It was a life of looting and killing and running and hiding from looters and killers.

 

[russ_watters]

A prime example of Anarchy is the history of the Mongols. ... They had clans and warlords, and looting was a way life. It was a life of looting and killing and running and hiding from looters and killers.

That's still not anarchy: it's tribalism. Still, it is a good example of the reality that humans will always organize themselves into, at least, little groups, even when they are undeveloped enough to not organize into nations.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I've noticed a lot of anarchists are refining their definition for anarchy. Some are actually speaking more about the economic framework than the political framework. I know this is debasing what anarchy actually is, but I find it interesting that they're more focused on the economic aspects when contending for anarchy.

 

[LightbulbSun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9eEK_GwfiI" has a weird definition for anarchy.

Anarchism: Any system that is operating without coercion.

I'm not even sure what that means.

 

[OrbitalPower]

What russ is saying is true of course: people failed to adequately establish essentials to society such as adequate environmental laws and business ethics.

However, I don't think this is the best argument against anarchy. These failures happened (and still do occur in the third world) within the confines of a capitalist system. Of course, in capitalism, there is a profit incentive, and since capitalists don't come up with a very good solution to the tragedy of the commons, the system inevitably led to poor living standards for the masses with large monopolies for the select few protected by the state.

Capitalists inevitably have to turn a profit, so any move to look out for the common good or deal with their own externalities puts them at a disadvantage in the market place. Furthermore, people in a capitalist system are left to take care of their own welfare, their own healthcare, their own workers' compensation, and retirement, so of course there is not much incentive to invest in the community.

Presumably, anarchists (Tucker, Proudhon, etc.) rejected capitalism, "landed monopolies," etc., and thus believed in more communual values and framework. You can't say people won't act a certain way just because they didn't do what you expected them to do under a hierarchical system.

The problem of Somalia is a problem of capitalism:

Somalis are so desperate to survive that attacks on merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean will not stop, a pirate leader promises.
A French warship keeps guard over commerical vessels in the Gulf of Aden last week.

"The pirates are living between life and death," said the pirate leader, identified by only one name, Boyah. "Who can stop them? Americans and British all put together cannot do anything."

...

Boyah said that the piracy began because traditional coastal fishing became difficult after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks. Traditional fishermen started attacking the trawlers until the trawler crews fought back with heavy weapons. The fishermen then turned to softer targets.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/01/pirate.interview/index.html

"after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks"

That is to say, after the military collapsed the government to back private property rights collapses as well, and you had overfishing.

The argument against anarchy that pythagorean gives is much better.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Anarchy is a temporary phenomena. Heirarchy is always formed, even if it's subtle. Even between three friends, a heirarchy is established.

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise.

The heirarchy may rotate depending on the context and moods of everyone, of course. But the simple fact is that some people are more willing to do what they're told and other people are more satisfied telling people what to do. Eventually, an authority is established based on power and will. (If someone has power but no ambition, they easily lose their power to someone who has ambition, but no power, thus making someone with power and ambition.)

If you want to get down to it, heirarchy itself is likely formed out of greed. The rich land-owner and lawmakers of the mercantile age eventually realized that they were suffocating their own coffers by restricting trade. Adams, Hobbes, and Locke all showed how the government could profit from letting people own their stuff and making them feel more secure. So allowing more freedoms may have very well been a product of greed itself.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here.

Anarchy, like other left-wing theories, puts far much faith in the individual to ultimately do the right thing, rather than being guided by society as the more "right-wing" theories insist.

However, you're putting little faith in people at all, I think.

The problems people face today, limited resources, environmental degredation, declining health and IQ (ironically, which may have been caused by modern pharmacology, sanitation, and various death prevention techniques) in third world countries and even in many first world ones, are huge problems.

Their are problems that will require massive intelligence, good will, and much cooperation among human beings all over the planet.

 

[Pythagorean]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the same as anarchy. Anarchy seems to have more conscious human intervention ("If you see somebody taking charge, you'll be expected to beat them!" -NOFX), while anarcho-prmitivism seems more instinctual.

However, you're putting little faith in people at all, I think.

True, but I don't know if this is necessarily an invalidating factor.

addendum:

Anarchism: Any system that is operating without coercion.

I also think this kind of fails in my frame of reference. If you're trying to dismantle a heirarchy, how do you do it without coercion?

addendum 2!:

My underlying, unspoken argument here (I just realized) is that hierarchy is a natural development process and anarchy is an ideal.

 

[OrbitalPower]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9eEK_GwfiI" has a weird definition for anarchy.



I'm not even sure what that means.

I stopped watching at "I'm luke, 21, unemployed, and single..."

Probably not a good idea to learn about political theories from a video blogging site like Youtube.

Free-Resources:

Notes on Anarchism By Noam Chomsky (MIT professor) might be a good place to start.

This entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica would be another good place, as it's even written by Kropotkin.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAanarchist.htm is another encyclopedic entry from spartacus.schoolnet, which has very well written entries.

The book "Community, Anarchy, and Liberty" is also a good introduction, written by Michael Taylor I believe and I think the full version is on Google books.

The mathematician and philosopher (who helped moved philosophy more into the scientific realm while finding not much use for the older philosophies) Bertrand Russell talked about anarchy a few times and even wrote a book on it called http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10-a.html.

Chomsky on Anarchy is another good one.

And "The Anarchist FAQ web page" also is pretty good.

If you use Debian Linux you can download it by apt-get install anarchism or just google it as well.


I've read a lot of it but don't necessarily agree with it, but just putting it out there for those interested and rebuttals to anarchy in polsci could be posted by someone else.

 

[russ_watters]

However, I don't think this is the best argument against anarchy. These failures happened (and still do occur in the third world) within the confines of a capitalist system.

So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really? Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist), but in both cases, the result is the same: the lack of regulation leads to human nature making the decision and the decision is no.

Of course, in capitalism, there is a profit incentive, and since capitalists don't come up with a very good solution to the tragedy of the commons, the system inevitably led to poor living standards for the masses with large monopolies for the select few protected by the state.

That's a serious bastardization of the history of industrialization and economics. The common war cry of socialists that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has never been true under capitalism and in industrialization. The fact of the matter is that industrialization benefits everyone in an industrialized society. The meteoric rise in global living standards over the past 100 years is a direct, overall illustration of this fact.

The tragedy of the commons is a human nature issue that every form of government/economics has to deal with. It is not strictly a capitalism issue. But at least in capitalism, the economy can grow on its own and people have the means to do something about it.

Capitalists inevitably have to turn a profit, so any move to look out for the common good or deal with their own externalities puts them at a disadvantage in the market place. Furthermore, people in a capitalist system are left to take care of their own welfare, their own healthcare, their own workers' compensation, and retirement, so of course there is not much incentive to invest in the community.

That's not how capitalists view capitalism. To a capitalist, the profit motive must include looking out for their customers, otherwise their customers will go away. The problem is that pure capitalism suffers from a similar flaw as pure socialism: people are both greedy and short sighted. The greedy part is the bigger problem for socialism, the short sighted part is the bigger flaw for capitalism. A good economic system must try to deal with both.

The problem of Somalia is a problem of capitalism:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/01/pirate.interview/index.html

"after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks"

Criminals are not a good source of information on the motivation for crime. They are twisted liars. As others have pointed out, being a pirate is far more profitable than being a fisherman. Being bad people in a lawless land, they chose piracy. That's not capitalism, that's anarchy.

That is to say, after the military collapsed the government to back private property rights collapses as well, and you had overfishing.

You're missing the point: if Somalia had a functional government, it would not have piracy. If the foreign fishermen were not around, they would still have piracy. That makes it a [lack of] government problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years.

So what? We had to learn how to be more than just animals who talk. It may be true that it was more or less stable, but that isn't really relevant here. In people with developed brains, a body of knowledge to draw on, and a high population density, it is a temporary thing.

This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise.

Besides the obvious contradiction of longevity vs progress, comparing that 10,000 to the last 100 would seem to me to be a convincing argument to the contrary.

 

[OrbitalPower]

So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really?

I didn't say anything about the "state of nature" equating to capitalism. I said that because humans are observed acting in a certain way under capitalism, you can't use that to prove that it's a fundamental human condition.

In the anthropological sciences it's well known that humans are essentially social creatures that do their best work when they are cooperative.

"State of nature" theorists in philosophy, such as Rousseau et al., tended to use arguments against civil property as well.

Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist)...

This isn't true at all. Economists don't predict this will happen and they are the ones who devote most of their time studying capitalism.

Only extremists would make this claim.

That's a serious bastardization of the history of industrialization and economics.

It isn't a bastardization of history, or economics. The greatest period of economic inequality in US history was during the Gilded Age - the time when there was generally a greater degree of "economic freedom" and less regulation on businesses.

There were more monopolies then than now. During America's time of Laissez-Faire capitalism, businesses generally formed mornopolies like standard oil and before that you had coal companies who would "combine" with each other to fire workers to keep down wages, the price of men, and keep up the price of coal, i.e. the wages of capital.

You don't understand the history of the trust busters and all the anti-monopoly legislation that had to be passed until you come to understand laissez-faire capitalism and its failures.

Not to mention the fact that children and women formed one third of the industrial labor force in America in the early 1900s, that there was no worker's compensation, that the menail work that Americans were forced to do for up to 17 hours during busy periods essentially made them "appdendages of the machine" as one classical liberal philosopher put it, and that if you were injured on the job there was no savings plan or any available avenues for you to take except to starve to death or put the kids to work and take them out of school.

Who are these "economists" that don't know this?

Now other countries are in this situation, but, unlike America, they do not have strong central governments to continually help build the economy and US corporations simply keep the majority perpetually in poverty by paying them slave wages, perhaps moving to another country or coddling with a totalitarian government should the employees attempt to fight for their rights.

The common war cry of socialists that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has never been true under capitalism and in industrialization. The fact of the matter is that industrialization benefits everyone in an industrialized society. The meteoric rise in global living standards over the past 100 years is a direct, overall illustration of this fact.

First of all, no one said this comment. Second of all, your facts are questionable here as well. You also had the "second world" during the twentieth century, the Soviet Union, for example, and these countries have gone down in living standards and back into the third world after implementing years of capitalistic "market reforms."

After India became a democratic-capitalist state, they also lost more people every 8 years than the total nubmer who perished in the Great Chinese Famine, according to the economists and political theorists Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (Hunger and Public Action). Sen is a nobel prize winner in economics. I don't see this as a "success story."

Third, according to the UN and the World Bank, over 50% of the people on the planet live on less than 2 dollars a day; over 60% of the planet live in rural areas. According to Dr. Abraham at the Wharton School of Business, rural population are increasing faster than their urban counterparts "mostly as a result of illiteracy, lack of access to birth control measures, and poverty" the result being that "there are more poor people in the world today than 50 years ago, and most live in rural areas."

These areas are seeing increases in poverty and strains on their resources exactly because of capitalism and industrialization; there are countries in the third world who have shipped more food out of the country than they consume, and it's not because they're fat and happy, either.

According to UN data, there are tens of millions of more people in poverty now than there were 30 years ago in Latin America.

http://www.un.org/popin/unfpa/dispatches/aug96.html

Furthermore, where poverty is decreasing, there are huge, government programs to the tune of billions of dollars every single year going to help support these underdeveloped areas. The same is true in the US as well with all of our economic management programs. The US became the leading nation AFTER WWII, and after the New Deal had built up the economy and provided an economic foundations for the years afterwards. For example, according to the economist Benjamin Bernanke's textbook, 1933-41 was "generally a period of economic growth" with "rising employment in manufacturing" and a rise in living standards. The other period of expansive economic growth was when the US was extremely protectionist. And while you don't have to agree with my interpretation of the facts, everybody who's studied International relations for five seconds knows that globalization is very debatable.

Government funding of industries and anti anti-poverty solutions, and huge, massive reinvestment programs in infastructure is hardly a triumph of capitalism, but of mixed type systems. Economists know this, and thus believe in regulating with market forces in a "market economy," in accordance with market principles, especially in areas where a lack of regulation would cause the economy to breakdown and/or operate in ways that are harmful to the public.

This is hardly "conservative" or "fixed" principles of economics like those that Republicans advocate, and why a majority of economists identify themselves as progressives (and a majority favored Obama as well according to polls by the Economist).

This is why I'd be interested in seeing where you're getting your inforation on "economics" and "the history of industrialization" - sounds like pretty shocking social science evidence to me.

The tragedy of the commons is a human nature issue that every form of government/economics has to deal with. It is not strictly a capitalism issue.

Not my point at all. Ideological capitalists don't come up with a sufficient solution for me. While they believe that sharing it would lead to people taking resources without concern for others, privatizing it leads to the same problem.

For example, if I own 40%, and someone else owns 40% of the commons, and the 20% is owned by whomever, if I try and do what's best for the commons I can be undercut in the market place. Happens all the time in economics Russ, such as with big corporations like Wal-Mart.

To a capitalist, the profit motive must include looking out for their customers, otherwise their customers will go away. The problem is that pure capitalism suffers from a similar flaw as pure socialism: people are both greedy and short sighted. The greedy part is the bigger problem for socialism, the short sighted part is the bigger flaw for capitalism. A good economic system must try to deal with both.

This "people are greedy" philosophy overlooks the cooperative nature in science, how species will sacrifice their own lives for the good species, how mutual cooperation is produced naturally and beneficial to numerous species, and so on.

Richard Dawkins even made a documentary on this entitled "Nice Guys Finish First" which is available free online.

Both claims "people are greedy" and "capitalism has been a success" are not very good arguments. The first one is a half-truth and the second one can be given for monarchies and other totalitarian societies, such as slave based ones, which went on for centuries.

So what? We had to learn how to be more than just animals who talk. It may be true that it was more or less stable, but that isn't really relevant here.

It is relevant if you believe that anarchy is unnatural. Humans seemed to get by just fine, in very harsh conditions as well.

Besides the obvious contradiction of longevity vs progress, comparing that 10,000 to the last 100 would seem to me to be a convincing argument to the contrary.

Not really.

That it took thousands of years of "civilization" to get to a supposedly "good civilization" with billions of people in poverty and another billion more leading completely miserable lives, while the minorty is awash in resources and exploiting other people's, with resources so unevenly spread, doesn't sound very good to me at all.

Not to mention the threat humans are posing to the planet; at least the people in anarcho-primitivism kept to a balance, and they didn't have such massive inequality.

You seem to be satisified with the state of the world, I find it still needs way too much work to even be considered a good, "civilized" society. There are far too many problems that need fixing.

 

[ultimablah]

"How can Mr. Smith afford his smithy even? People will have something whether that's some resources or a skill or what have you everyone will have something and some will have more than others even if they are not obscenely wealthy.

But on the capacity to afford armed men. A merchant may be able to afford, say, a hundred dollars to purchase a cheap weapon. Perhaps even five hundred to purchase a decent one. But can he weild it well? Can he police and run his shop simultaneously anyway? If he can't weild it well and won't be able to wander his shop brandishing it to discourage theivery what would be the point in spending even as little as a hundred dollars on this weapon? Why not just get a heavy stick for when he does happen to catch a theif? Or maybe he can more easily afford to pay Mr. Smith. Especially if Mr. Smith's men are more capable of discouraging and catching theives and vandals than the merchant with his hundred dollar gun under the counter. For a merchant "Loss Prevention" is the key to whether or not he can afford security. And if his customers feel more safe in his shop he will possibly even get a boost in business. The idea essentially is that the investment should make him money not cost him money. "Affordability" has to do with more than just having the resources, it also requires an ability to make the investment worth the cost."

Okay, the problem with this is, what about the competition? You're assuming Smith is the only smithy in the world, and has no competition, but the chance that there is no other man who can offer services of the quality of Smith's in a world as large as ours is quite low. And again, as I asked, would you purchase Smith's product if you knew he had a monopoly? There would be an "anti-Smith" market, so to speak, which any entrepreneurial individual could capitalize on.

The philosophy is flawed because greedy people will not want to do all those thigns you just said. People will not fund fire departments and police departments and roads voluntarily. We don't have to theorize or philosophize about this: we already know it because it has been tried. This isn't theory, it's reality. Not even in small groups can you find enough agreeable people to do such things (unless ideology is the reason the group is formed). Talk to anyone who belongs to a condo association to hear about this fact of human nature in action.

One wonders how anarchists think we've arrived at the system of government we have today. For example, how do we know people won't build quality buildings if there were no building codes? Answer: for a hundred years, there were no building codes and people did not build quality buildings and as a result, a lot of people died in fires that consumed most of our major cities (among other problems).

If there is ever an example of Political Science really being a science and not a philosophy, this one is it. People call their ideas theories, then ignore the implications of what a theory is. They ignore the experimentation and falsification!

Okay, if people do not want roads and fire departments and police stations, then what right does the government have to force people to pay for the goods and services people do not want? It's like a bakery saying, "our bread is good, and if you don't buy it we'll throw you into our cellar".

You have to remember, the world is a large group, and if there are a portion of people, say, 50,000 out of a million who want hospitals and would be willing to pay for them, then there is a market for that product. A minority should not be able to force the majority to conform to the minority's will. Let people make mistakes, they will learn from them.

So for your building codes question, people, after those fires, realized that the fires were bad, and so made bad buildings illegal. However, that's kind of unnecessary; people would not want to buy a house that was easily destroyed or set on fire, and so people would not buy those, and instead buy buildings which were safer. People would push for higher quality buildings, and companies which pushed low-quality buildings would go out of business.

And, if people would buy a house that is easily destroyed, then they accept the risk of their house being destroyed when they purchase it, and let people make their mistakes.

The point is, people will pay for what they want, and if they do not want a dangerous house, they will not pay for a dangerous house. Let people have the freedom to make their "mistakes".

The only thing the anarchist system assumes is that information is freely available, that people are greedy, and that people will pay for what they want.

So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really? Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist), but in both cases, the result is the same: the lack of regulation leads to human nature making the decision and the decision is no.

What is wrong with a "no" decision? Are you assuming that people can never learn, and have to be led like lambs?

Also, for the problem of monopolies, now that historical precedents are known, there is definitely a much higher fear of monopolies than there was previously. So what if a monopoly forms? If they start raising prices, a huge, gaping market of "same product, less cost" opens up, and competitors will flood in. What if it's a natural resource, and people can't set up competition? Well, even natural resources(example: coal) have competition with other natural resources(example: gas), so even if coal is monopolized, people will come up with alternative resources that are more efficient, safer, less polluting, and less expensive.

Are people naturally personally lethargic? Can people naturally not make their own decisions about what they want?

 

[jreelawg]

Okay, the problem with this is, what about the competition? You're assuming Smith is the only smithy in the world, and has no competition, but the chance that there is no other man who can offer services of the quality of Smith's in a world as large as ours is quite low. And again, as I asked, would you purchase Smith's product if you knew he had a monopoly? There would be an "anti-Smith" market, so to speak, which any entrepreneurial individual could capitalize on.
Okay, if people do not want roads and fire departments and police stations, then what right does the government have to force people to pay for the goods and services people do not want? It's like a bakery saying, "our bread is good, and if you don't buy it we'll throw you into our cellar".

You have to remember, the world is a large group, and if there are a portion of people, say, 50,000 out of a million who want hospitals and would be willing to pay for them, then there is a market for that product. A minority should not be able to force the majority to conform to the minority's will. Let people make mistakes, they will learn from them.

So for your building codes question, people, after those fires, realized that the fires were bad, and so made bad buildings illegal. However, that's kind of unnecessary; people would not want to buy a house that was easily destroyed or set on fire, and so people would not buy those, and instead buy buildings which were safer. People would push for higher quality buildings, and companies which pushed low-quality buildings would go out of business.

And, if people would buy a house that is easily destroyed, then they accept the risk of their house being destroyed when they purchase it, and let people make their mistakes.

The point is, people will pay for what they want, and if they do not want a dangerous house, they will not pay for a dangerous house. Let people have the freedom to make their "mistakes".

The only thing the anarchist system assumes is that information is freely available, that people are greedy, and that people will pay for what they want.
What is wrong with a "no" decision? Are you assuming that people can never learn, and have to be led like lambs?

Also, for the problem of monopolies, now that historical precedents are known, there is definitely a much higher fear of monopolies than there was previously. So what if a monopoly forms? If they start raising prices, a huge, gaping market of "same product, less cost" opens up, and competitors will flood in. What if it's a natural resource, and people can't set up competition? Well, even natural resources(example: coal) have competition with other natural resources(example: gas), so even if coal is monopolized, people will come up with alternative resources that are more efficient, safer, less polluting, and less expensive.

Are people naturally personally lethargic? Can people naturally not make their own decisions about what they want?

Lets just assume the whole world is in anarchy. Who is going to be the person who keeps it that way? In reality at least one nation would form. Then that nation would do as nations have done for thousands of years, conquest and colonize. How would rock throwing self serving anarchists fight off a united military with billions and billions of tax funds?

 

[mheslep]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. ...

I believe you must mean the human hunter-gatherer period. 'Anarcho-primativism' appears to be a political construct that makes reference to hunter-gatherer societies as part of its model; its not a term of art in anthropology.

 

[mheslep]

...It isn't a bastardization of history, or economics. The greatest period of economic inequality in US history was during the Gilded Age - the time when there was generally a greater degree of "economic freedom" and less regulation on businesses.

There were more monopolies then than now. During America's time of Laissez-Faire capitalism, businesses generally formed mornopolies like standard oil and before that you had coal companies who would "combine" with each other to fire workers to keep down wages, the price of men, and keep up the price of coal, i.e. the wages of capital.

You don't understand the history of the trust busters and all the anti-monopoly legislation that had to be passed until you come to understand laissez-faire capitalism and its failures.

Many of those monopolies were temporary, the rose and collapsed under their own weight.

Not to mention the fact that children and women formed one third of the industrial labor force in America in the early 1900s, that there was no worker's compensation, that the menail work that Americans were forced to do for up to 17 hours during busy periods essentially made them "appdendages of the machine" as one classical liberal philosopher put it, and that if you were injured on the job there was no savings plan or any available avenues for you to take except to starve to death or put the kids to work and take them out of school.

This should be put into the perspective of the rural farm life of the time and from which they came. Subsistence farming was a brutal life for most. ALL women and children worked on subsistence farms, all the time. The people who headed for the factories are evidence of this in that they voted with their feet.

After India became a democratic-capitalist state, they also lost more people every 8 years than the total nubmer who perished in the Great Chinese Famine, according to the economists and political theorists Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (Hunger and Public Action). Sen is a nobel prize winner in economics. I don't see this as a "success story."

Don't confuse capitalism with free markets. Every country has 'capitalism' in that sense, even the former Soviet Union. The question is who controls the capital. In the SU the state controlled it all. India did not become a free market capitalist state until the 90's. Prior to that, the capital was mostly under the control of the state, and in that aspect analogous to the Soviet Union.

Not to mention the threat humans are posing to the planet; at least the people in anarcho-primitivism kept to a balance, and they didn't have such massive inequality

That is not consistent with any common history of, say, the native American peoples as described by the early Columbian era explorers - if that era and place is in keeping with what you mean. Some tribes were extremely well off - well fed, well clothed, rich culture, holding large numbers of slaves, and others were very poor, on the verge of collapse - all well before the Europeans arrived.