The problem with anarchy.. And what

in #anarchist • 8 years ago

Since the beginning of man, tribes have emerged as the optimal unit of society. This fact has 3 main reasons 1 cooperation amongst a high trust social circle helped advance the economic prosperity through a division of labor so specialization and advances in technology increased the standard of living. As the tribe became more prosperous the wealth will naturally be sought after by outside tribes and requires a organized defense to repeal the outside invaders. Without direction that defense is ineffective and will be conquered by a better more organized and better armed society. 2. Now I agree whole hearted with the premise that anarchy without rulers and the non aggression principle or NAP is the most moral and fair standard to live by. The problem with that is your outside force does not give a damn about your morality and this evidentiary fact can be seen in the undeniable truth that no anarchist society exists in the world today. Some people have tried semi free societies like the gulch but the fact of the matter is it has to tip toe around water rights of the government and local municipalities. 3. Dispute resolution in a society with no supreme authority would be a bloodbath. Most people are not about to agree to go to a private 3rd party dispute resolution with out a threat to do so. You owe me money so come to xyz so they can rule on it.....sounds like a good way to end up in a trash bin. Paper or person

#tribalism #nap #state #boom
8 years ago in #anarchist by
$0.00
    2 votes
    Reply 5
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago 

    To address all of your points in order:

    1. There is no reason to believe that this must be accomplished via coercion. Voluntary cooperation can accomplish an organized defense against an external attacker. This has been the case in Rojava, where the Kurds have experienced a fair amount of success repelling ISIS and taking back territory. moreover, a decentralized resistance is much more effective in demoralizing and bankrupting an enemy. War is costly. Guerilla warfare is much cheaper and can be just as effective. For example, Afghanistan in the 80's and today.
    2. That's why voluntaryism will function when a sufficient number of people subscribe to the universal ethical principles of consent and self-ownership. Anarchists that think that anything constructive in the long-term by violent revolution are fooling themselves. Politics is a lagging indicator of culture; when there is a sufficient culture shift, nation-states will fall by the way side. Your example of water rights presupposes states existing, so it's not indicative of whether or not an voluntaryist society could function.
    3. Says who? Assertions aren't evidence. In a voluntary society, especially one with more technological advancement and access to information than ours, reputation would be vitally important. If you owe someone money, and you refuse to handle your business in a legitimate manner to reach a mutual agreement, you can suffer serious financial and social sanctions simply by people refusing to do business with you or interact with you. Once again, the power of ostracizing and shunning people is severely downplayed.

    I'd also like to touch on one other thing: the fact it has not succeeded before does not mean that it cannot succeed in the future. If you were to tell someone in 1789 that they would be able to communicate on devices that harnessed electricity to send messages and voices across the globe instantaneously, and that these devices fit in one's hand and could also store information, view pictures, and view a moving series of pictures, you'd be ridiculed into obscurity. And yet, here we are.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago 

      Human beings are reactive not proactive and need to be forced to deferred compensation and build a defense. The guerilla warfare is only possible when you have an outside force financing and supplies subsidization. Literally every example you can point to is a successful proxy war of superpowers
      ...

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         8 years ago 

        You'd have to make the case that the Mujahideen were not capable of demoralizing Russian troops without American financing and backing, which they didn't have until well into the second half of the decade-long Soviet occupation. You're welcome to provide evidence to support your claim.

        As for human beings only being reactive, that's simply not true. Human beings defer compensation for immediate wants all the time. If you've ever saved your money to buy a higher-dollar item instead of buying something small that you wanted, you've provided a counterexample to your claim.

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           8 years ago 

          You're automatically conflating tribal organization with the idea of forceful, coercive government. Tribes can exist, as you say, so that individuals support each other in a circle of trust with other individuals. But if you break that trust, well, they don't have to lock you in a cage, they can simply withdraw their support of you.

          $0.00
            Reply
            [-]
             8 years ago 

            Right but living in a place like California there are simply too many people to interact with to make reputation a viable option you can't ostracize for no central authority owns the geographic area

            $0.00
              Reply