You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
32

[–] Yo 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

Anarchy refers to a society without rulers, not necessarily rules altogether. Anarchists can have rules, but they're more of a voluntary type thing. The fact that they enforce them via bans is a mockery to the name. This is why I find right wing anarchists more reasonable even if I don't agree with them.

3
8

[–] RabidRaccoon 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Eh, I don't believe in either to be honest. Look at the rise of Rome for example. It's clear that anarchy is an unstable state because eventually some group will be organised and ruthless enough to take over and impose their own set of rules. In the Roman case they'd sack the cities of a defeated enemy and everyone ended up either enslaved (women and children) or killed (adult men). So the women ended up having children who were brought up in the winner's culture. Same with most empires really - an organised military with ruthless commanders will chew through an unlimited amount of barbarians. And barbarian is basically another way of saying 'disorganised fighters'.

So right now if the state went away there'd be a period of anarchy. And then some new regime would take over by being able to use well organised, ruthless violence. Given how it would start it's unlikely to be anywhere near as liberal as the one it replaced. So the choice isn't really between the state and freedom it is between the sort of liberal democratic state you have in the first world and rule by warlords or a full on totalitarian regime. Anarchy is just a metastable state between the two.

Historically that's always been the case. In most revolutions the old regime collapses, there is a period of anarchy and then a new and usually worse regime takes over. Anarchism is Catalonia and Ukraine was eventually replaced by a ruthless totalitarian regime with a well organised military.

I'm a minarchist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy and a form of libertarianism. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.

I.e. the state should exist and leaders should be chosen democratically. However only the military, police and courts are legitimate institutions. You can run that sort of state on very low levels of taxation. Taiwan is a good example.

But Taiwan needs an army to stop the Chinese from invading and replacing a democratic minarchist state with a totalitarian one.

Incidentally I don't expect the US or UK to get anywhere near the minarchist ideal in my lifetime, so perhaps the difference between minarchism and anarcho capitalism is academic.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I see no reason why state services can't be replaced by private ones. A few years back the state I live in was arguing that only they could provide TV and telecoms, now not only are others providing those services, without needing a monopoly to do so, they're providing them in ways the state never considered.

Actually... it's kinda hard to think of anything service a state provides which some private company doesn't offer somewhere in the world.

0
1

[–] 3dk 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Great comment. Anarchists are like dogs chasing cars, once they have reached their goal, they have no idea what to do.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I agree representative democracy could work if you elected all the right people, the only trouble is that no one to date has managed to do so. A system which can't deal with the inevitability of bad/stupid people will never work in practice.

0
1

[–] Genghis_Khan 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

While you are technically correct, the term actually means "without hierarchy." It doesn't necessarily mean no one is in charge or that everyone does whatever they want.

0
0

[–] RightCross4 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Anarchist can have rules

And what happens if someone breaks those rules? Or doesn't abide by them?

0
1

[–] Genghis_Khan 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

So it isn't the case that there are no consequences in an anarchist system. What happens to someone who breaks a rule very likely would depend on what breaking that rule means and perhaps more importantly, who they offended by breaking it.

0
0

[–] Yo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Presumably ostracism.