“Mutual aid is an organizational model where voluntary, collaborative exchanges of resources and services for common benefit take place amongst community members to overcome social, economic, and political barriers to meeting common needs.”
Legal systems are far more effective at guiding human behavior than hoping for the voluntary good will of people’s hearts.
History seems to support that coercion is necessary to stop the most egregious abuses by bad actors. Tell us how we would prevent someone like Trump who lacks any concern for anyone else from cheating and robbing everyone without some sort of deterrent using force.
I like the idea of anarchism, but I see it as more of an ideal world view than an actual stable reality.
To support this, every group member of every group must almost unanimously support the concept. When resources or safety in an area become scarce, it’s easy for some groups to evolve back into another power structure to take care of their own people.
It’s really difficult for me to imagine everybody on this planet getting along with this. But I’m certainly interested in other viewpoints.
Honestly ALL systems are more of an ideal world than a stable reality. So singling out anarchism because it too is idealistic isn’t really much of an argument against it.
Well, in many other systems you have an overarching ruling layer that sets laws and is able to enforce them from a top level.
That is precisely the reason why those systems can be relatively stable. As you just have a very large group of people following the same set of rules.
I’d rather live under a state with a secure monopoly on violence than in a stateless chaos of violence. Anarchy isn’t a form of government. It’s simply the period before a group uses violence to establish itself as the government.
Let me ask you, would you rather deal with a cop or a warlord?
You do not understand anarchism in the slightest. You are imagining some Hobbsian hellscape out of a disaster movie, which is completely counter to human nature.
Sparta, the Third Reich, the French Revolution, Chattel America, the British Raj.
My point here is that a lack of a central government will naturally lead to some sort of central government establishing itself. It could come from inside or from an external threat. It’s possibly that that government turns out to be authoritarian and oppressive, like the ones I mentioned.
For instance, how would an anarchist ethnically Jewish society hold out against an industrial Nazi Germany should they be so unlucky to simply exist next to them?
The British Raj managed to establish itself and rape India for 90 years even despite there already being established governments in the region. Imagine how powerless an anarchic Indian society would’ve been to defend against the British Empire at it’s peak.
Anarchy is not sustainable. That’s why we should strive to put in place a good and equitable government to protect us from that possible tyranny. The problem is the same human forces corrupt government’s too.
Huh so they’re all based on hierarchical structures. And they came directly from other hierarchical structures. That’s interesting. It’s almost like your argument is nonsense because hellscapes are a result of hierarchical structures.
I don’t know what that means, but I don’t think you do either.
“Mutual aid is an organizational model where voluntary, collaborative exchanges of resources and services for common benefit take place amongst community members to overcome social, economic, and political barriers to meeting common needs.”
Legal systems are far more effective at guiding human behavior than hoping for the voluntary good will of people’s hearts.
So your argument is that the only way to get people to live together is under the constant threat of violence from the state?
History seems to support that coercion is necessary to stop the most egregious abuses by bad actors. Tell us how we would prevent someone like Trump who lacks any concern for anyone else from cheating and robbing everyone without some sort of deterrent using force.
Not the guy you were talking to, but in my opinion, yes
I like the idea of anarchism, but I see it as more of an ideal world view than an actual stable reality.
To support this, every group member of every group must almost unanimously support the concept. When resources or safety in an area become scarce, it’s easy for some groups to evolve back into another power structure to take care of their own people.
It’s really difficult for me to imagine everybody on this planet getting along with this. But I’m certainly interested in other viewpoints.
Honestly ALL systems are more of an ideal world than a stable reality. So singling out anarchism because it too is idealistic isn’t really much of an argument against it.
Well, in many other systems you have an overarching ruling layer that sets laws and is able to enforce them from a top level.
That is precisely the reason why those systems can be relatively stable. As you just have a very large group of people following the same set of rules.
I’d rather live under a state with a secure monopoly on violence than in a stateless chaos of violence. Anarchy isn’t a form of government. It’s simply the period before a group uses violence to establish itself as the government.
Let me ask you, would you rather deal with a cop or a warlord?
You do not understand anarchism in the slightest. You are imagining some Hobbsian hellscape out of a disaster movie, which is completely counter to human nature.
This is the definition I am basing my perspective on.
“the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government; anarchism.”
Also human nature has created plenty of hellscapes in the past. Don’t think it can’t happen again.
Can you give some examples of those hellscapes?
Sparta, the Third Reich, the French Revolution, Chattel America, the British Raj.
My point here is that a lack of a central government will naturally lead to some sort of central government establishing itself. It could come from inside or from an external threat. It’s possibly that that government turns out to be authoritarian and oppressive, like the ones I mentioned.
For instance, how would an anarchist ethnically Jewish society hold out against an industrial Nazi Germany should they be so unlucky to simply exist next to them?
The British Raj managed to establish itself and rape India for 90 years even despite there already being established governments in the region. Imagine how powerless an anarchic Indian society would’ve been to defend against the British Empire at it’s peak.
Anarchy is not sustainable. That’s why we should strive to put in place a good and equitable government to protect us from that possible tyranny. The problem is the same human forces corrupt government’s too.
Huh so they’re all based on hierarchical structures. And they came directly from other hierarchical structures. That’s interesting. It’s almost like your argument is nonsense because hellscapes are a result of hierarchical structures.