Humanity Without Government?

[Bleid]

Can it survive?

How will it survive?

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not?

[Karkat]

Can it survive? I personally believe that anarchy would never truly work. I don't personally have enough faith in people, as a group, to think that things could go over without complete mayhem, basically.

I.e. I think people tend to kinda be out for themselves, and we'd all end up dead. I tend to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, probably foolishly, but I'm pretty cynical and untrusting of people as a whole.

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not? No.

[JamesSuperBoy]

Not sure but it would be good to try - but then you just replace government with another system.

[Miserabilia]

Can it survive?

I think it has, well, atleast the human race survived for quite a while without government. However this leads to smaller solitary groups of people, so survival is much more difficult, and it's easier to get seperated. If we had society from the start of mankind, I don't think we would have spread out throughout the continents, and changing phyicaly doing so.

How will it survive?
I think the same way humans did before (large) human civilizations. Just small groups of people, exploiting nature in the wild instead of controlling it, so hunting and picking. No controll over other people, justr trying to srvive. In this surrounding there would not be much art of science, though, because focus would be on survival.

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not?
I don't think so. In a way it would make life and the world much more simpler, and it would probably cause us to lost much longer on the earth's natural resources, but we would never achieve today's scientific and artistic development without some form of government.

[Hyper]

A pointless question in my mind. Anarchists can't seem to accept the fact that the current state of affairs ultimately was born out of anarchy.

Or rather that there never has been any real anarchy and there wont be, it's against human nature.

Even before man formed kingdoms, city states, empires, republics and so on and just lived as hunter gatherers there was always some form of hierarchy, traditions, customs and usually a single person acting as a leader.

I don't think anarchy would work. Brutes would use violence to assert control and grab power and non violent people would band together to resist that and form their own society for mutual benefits.

[JamesSuperBoy]

I do not think it is a pointless question - perhaps some definition of what is meant by government and the distinction between the traditions and culture of old.

[Horatio Nelson]

Can it survive?

I think it has, well, atleast the human race survived for quite a while without government. However this leads to smaller solitary groups of people, so survival is much more difficult, and it's easier to get seperated. If we had society from the start of mankind, I don't think we would have spread out throughout the continents, and changing phyicaly doing so.

How will it survive?
I think the same way humans did before (large) human civilizations. Just small groups of people, exploiting nature in the wild instead of controlling it, so hunting and picking. No controll over other people, justr trying to srvive. In this surrounding there would not be much art of science, though, because focus would be on survival.

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not?
I don't think so. In a way it would make life and the world much more simpler, and it would probably cause us to lost much longer on the earth's natural resources, but we would never achieve today's scientific and artistic development without some form of government.

Pretty much this.


I don't think true anarchy will ever exist. There will always be someone to step in and take the mantle of leader. It's just how people work.

[DeadEyes]

There has to be a system, otherwise it would be chaos.
And as I mentioned in that thread about the so called perfect society, there's no such thing as an ideal society,
the system is to our image, corrupted and flawed.

[CosmicNoodle]

Can it survive?

No, we will destory ourselves, not now, maybe not in ayear, maybe not in 100 years, but one ay we will. We are to inteligent, and alow stupid people to control our inteligence.

How will it survive?

I don't think we will. And hope we don't

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not?

If we are all dead, yes, it wouldbe much better.


... -_-

[TroyH]

It is clear through studying history that humans can in fact function peacefully without a government.

The problem is, humans living in large fixed communities without a government really can't do the same. So that is actually where the issue lies, not just human nature itself really.

There's lots of reading to be done on this topic... Quinn, Hobbes... just look up some readings about the "Social Contract" and you'll find all the classic and contemporary authors and readings about this kind of thing. I could go on and on about this one, but I've written many a paper about it. This is probably the shortest response I've ever given on the topic.

[Bleid]

It is clear through studying history that humans can in fact function peacefully without a government.

The problem is, humans living in large fixed communities without a government really can't do the same. So that is actually where the issue lies, not just human nature itself really.

There's lots of reading to be done on this topic... Quinn, Hobbes... just look up some readings about the "Social Contract" and you'll find all the classic and contemporary authors and readings about this kind of thing. I could go on and on about this one, but I've written many a paper about it. This is probably the shortest response I've ever given on the topic.

Why can't they?

[Miserabilia]

Why can't they?

I think it'd have something to do with representation. People want to respresent as groups to each other, and as a large community without representation they feel unimportant, insignificant, which I suppose you could reason would be a reason for riots, outbreaks and eventualy someone taking charge, as human nature seems to suggest.

[TroyH]

Why can't they?

More complex societies mean more issues over economics. When you live in a fixed location, you have disputes over land. Government is then formed to be a 3rd party in these debate.

That's a pretty quick summary of it. Basically, if the concept of ownership didn't exist, then humans would not need a government to regulate. Ownership is really what gave rise to civilization as we know it today, as well as government.

What I'm saying is the only way we could make it without a government is if we got rid of civilization as we know it.

[Miserabilia]

What I'm saying is the only way we could make it without a government is if we got rid of civilization as we know it.

That seems logical enough

[Vlerchan]

People want to respresent as groups to each other, and as a large community without representation they feel unimportant, insignificant, which I suppose you could reason would be a reason for riots, outbreaks and eventualy someone taking charge, as human nature seems to suggest.
I have no idea why people seem to believe that neither hierarchy or self-identification can exist in anarchy.

---

More complex societies mean more issues over economics.
Nobody disagrees with this. What people do disagree with is that a government is uniquely positioned to solve these issues.

---

I'm also presuming we're discussing right-anarchy as opposed to left-anarchy here.

When you live in a fixed location, you have disputes over land.
And that's why man constructed the idea of "private-property rights".

And then man proceeded to create "courts" which might resolve disputes involving supposed conflicts between these rights.

Nothing says that these courts need to be government-operated.

Government is then formed to be a 3rd party in these debate.
Is this a necessity? is the question.

[Miserabilia]

I have no idea why people seem to believe that neither hierarchy or self-identification can exist in anarchy.


Wouldn't anarchy neccecairly be the hypothetical state of no hierarchy?
If not, that was the idea was going by.

[TroyH]

I have no idea why people seem to believe that neither hierarchy or self-identification can exist in anarchy.

---


Nobody disagrees with this. What people do disagree with is that a government is uniquely positioned to solve these issues.

---

I'm also presuming we're discussing right-anarchy as opposed to left-anarchy here.


And that's why man constructed the idea of "private-property rights".

And then man proceeded to create "courts" which might resolve disputes involving supposed conflicts between these rights.

Nothing says that these courts need to be government-operated.


Is this a necessity? is the question.

Courts are a form of government by definition. And yes some form of mediation for debates and disputes would be necessary, which would be a form of government (if not a form of government as one might necessarily imagine).

[Vlerchan]

Courts are a form of government by definition.
No. Currently the provision of disputes resolution and management is a service largely monopolised by government.

And yes some form of mediation for debates and disputes would be necessary, which would be a form of government (if not a form of government as one might necessarily imagine).
The defining aspect of government is that its functions are imposed on people by threat of violent force.

If private courts did not attempt to do this then they wouldn't be considered government in the same sense that anarchist rally against it.

edit:

Wouldn't anarchy neccecairly be the hypothetical state of no hierarchy?
It's generally defined as "no-government" though lots of left-anarchist to tend to rally against hierarchy in general.

[TroyH]

No. Currently the provision of disputes resolution and management is a service largely monopolised by government.


The defining aspect of government is that its functions are imposed on people by threat of violent force.

If private courts did not attempt to do this then they wouldn't be considered government in the same sense that anarchist rally against it.

To say that a court is not a form of government is false. Courts deal in issuing orders and rulings which govern people. Therefore a court is a form of government all by itself.

[Miserabilia]

It's generally defined as "no-government" though lots of left-anarchist to tend to rally against hierarchy in general.

Fair enough; how would you define anarchy, and more importantly, how would you define government?
If hierarchy is not excluded in anarchy, the line to government seems blurred, in which case we'd wonder if anarchy can even exist.

[Vlerchan]

To say that a court is not a form of government is false. Courts deal in issuing orders and rulings which govern people. Therefore a court is a form of government all by itself.
I'm just going to repeat what I said:

"The defining aspect of government is that its functions are imposed on people by threat of violent force.

If private courts did not attempt to do this then they wouldn't be considered government in the same sense that anarchist rally against it."

Feel free to address this.

edit:

Fair enough; how would you define anarchy, and more importantly, how would you define government?
I define anarchy as a system in which government doesn't exist.

I define government as an entity of which has a monopoly on the use violent force and exercises such in the pursuit of its objectives.

If hierarchy is not excluded in anarchy, the line to government seems blurred, in which case we'd wonder if anarchy can even exist.
Not if you're defining government as I do.

[Miserabilia]

I define government as an entity of which has a monopoly on the use violent force and exercises such in the pursuit of its objectives.



Ah I see. That makes sense.

[phuckphace]

the government shouldn't have a total monopoly on violence, imo. citizens should be allowed to use lethal force to defend their persons, property and loved ones. I think you get better results when citizens are allowed to assist the police in neutralizing dangerous individuals, instead of criminalizing the use of force and putting citizens in fear of assailants and the police. I believe that any government that makes regular use of lethal force but disallows its use by citizens is grossly hypocritical and probably a lot less likely to have popular support for that reason.

[Miserabilia]

I believe that any government that makes regular use of lethal force but disallows its use by citizens is grossly hypocritical and probably a lot less likely to have popular support for that reason.

Isn't the point that basicly every government does this though?

[TroyH]

I'm just going to repeat what I said:

"The defining aspect of government is that its functions are imposed on people by threat of violent force.

If private courts did not attempt to do this then they wouldn't be considered government in the same sense that anarchist rally against it."

Feel free to address this.

edit:


I define anarchy as a system in which government doesn't exist.

I define government as an entity of which has a monopoly on the use violent force and exercises such in the pursuit of its objectives.


Not if you're defining government as I do.

So then how would a private court go about any sort of conflict resolution without at some point falling into your definition of government?
They rule that person A owes person B so much money.
Person A decides not to pay it because they feel the decision was unfair.
What would motivate Person A to pay his debt if it were not for the threat of some sort of violent force (arrest, etc.)?

[Vlerchan]

So then how would a private court go about any sort of conflict resolution without at some point falling into your definition of government?
http://mises.org/daily/2429

I'd suggest ctrl+F-ing to: "Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society" if you want to skip the opening. If you have any particular issues with how Rothbard argues his case in this article then feel free to quote the relevant text here alongside your critique.

[phuckphace]

If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.

LMAO

It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, "claims and exercises a monopoly of crime" over its territorial area.

"anarchy is good because some governments are bad" LMAO

How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.

or more likely, these corrupt arbitrators take measures to shore up their positions (corruption) in ways that may not be immediately obvious to the general public. if I woke up tomorrow as the richest asshole in an anarchist society, the very first thing I'd do is make sure I stayed the richest asshole, and I've got the deepest pockets to help with that. in other words, what I'm hearing is that in practice it'll be business as usual in this "anarchy."

guess what I'm trying to say is Rothbard was a raving lunatic.

[normalperson]

Can it survive? *exhales an extremely long breath* humanity cannot survive without government for government is but a necessary evil which cannot be undone. man has a penchant for inhumanity for inhumanity is a big part of humanity. we are inherently evil and yet a lot of us cannot see it. mired in the inefficiency's and quagmires of an hypocrisy of a doomed system which people blindly ignore, for governments are only on paper just like the "things" they rule over, as i say "a system with no system is not a system but an idea of the mentally blind" sorry no more of this rant i'm tired and ready for bed. :(

How will it survive? it will not.

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not? our impending doom (impending not imminent) will be a boon even for us. (sorry i could not elaborate see below!)

please if you want to chat about anything at all whether politics, religion, humanity, etc. feel free, my open mind does not judge! good night to all!;)

[RRay99]

^ Have to agree with my fellow Canuck Normal Person lol :) Think most politicians suck, but government provides some necessary services. Would much rather see experts run different ministries instead of random politicians who have no training or background but that's imho.

[Vlerchan]

humanity cannot survive without government for government is but a necessary evil which cannot be undone.
I cannot respond to such a lack of specificity.

What function is it 'necessary' that governments carry out?

man has a penchant for inhumanity for inhumanity is a big part of humanity. we are inherently evil and yet a lot of us cannot see it.
If man is inherently evil then why are you happy you allow him rule over you?

I don't agree with your assessment regardless though.

mired in the inefficiency's and quagmires of an hypocrisy of a doomed system which people blindly ignore, for governments are only on paper just like the "things" they rule over, as i say "a system with no system is not a system but an idea of the mentally blind"
Please be more specific here. Thank you.

[DeadEyes]

What function is it 'necessary' that governments carry out?


Seriously? Honestly sometimes I wonder if you're not just trying to troll people with your questions. Isn't it obvious? Economy, laws, gestion, whatever governments take care of?

[Vlerchan]

Economy.
Markets can operate without government intervention - and arguably more efficiently.

Laws.
I linked to a source above which explains how laws (derived from private-property rights) would be enforced by private courts.

Feel free to read that source and critique it if you feel it's necessary.

Gestion
I have no idea what this means. I presume you don't mean 'gestation' too.

Whatever governments take care of.
I would appreciate if you could be more exact.

[normalperson]

sorry my answer wasn't specific, i was just tired and after a long day of life draining life. any who...
I cannot respond to such a lack of specificity.

What function is it 'necessary' that governments carry out? sorry. governments oversee/run the police service, fire service, through the bureaucracy (although as Oscar Wilde says "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." and i don't think a group of pencil pushers supporting other groups of pencil pushers helps much. I'm ranting) without any of the "security" the government also provides we would all be killing each other (surprisingly more then we do already). I'm done. sorry i would have an endless rant. if you want more detail i am more then happy if you PM me i can be way more in depth.


If man is inherently evil then why are you happy you allow him rule over you? i am not happy about it believe me but as i stated previously the government is necessary (although not necessarily in the form it is now).

I don't agree with your assessment regardless though. Oh I'm OK with that and don't blame you, i'm quite random and to each his own opinion thanks. :)


Please be more specific here. Thank you. hope i did a bit better

[Vlerchan]

police service.
Just because the government run/oversee this currently does that mean it can only be run/overseen by the government?

I'd imagine competing private-security firms could do as good a job. It's not like they don't exist today.

fire service
Just because the government run/oversee this currently does that mean it can only be run/overseen by the government?

In the past fire brigades have actually been privately run. There's then massive scope for voluntary institutions here.

without any of the "security" the government also provides we would all be killing each other.
You've given me no reason to believe this.

sorry i would have an endless rant.
I don't mind. This is actually an interesting topic. I'd rather that than see it die.

[normalperson]

well OK Vlerchan time to get to business. I'm back for another round then eh.
Me then
Vlerchan
Me now
My saying
First notes

now first i must go over what i mean in as much detail as possible:
first. the main reason we cannot do without government is that frankly, we have come to far to go without it, now to get hypothetical (prepare your self for a rant) let's just say that you are the creator of everything (god) and you decided to make humanity the way you see fit. now first you would have to make the people, their memory's, the planet, etc. memory's are especially important because if you give people the memory's instead of just dropping them in the middle of confusion no good will come out, so if you give them memory of your "perfect system" they will be comfortable. now that the biggest challenge is out of the way you can focus on the making of a society (no mean feat by any standards) which will also be integral to keeping things together although you'd have to keep in mind the next step. the next step would be actually forming public services, who drives them, etc. like the post office, police, firefighters, etc. then you would have to come up with currency (or have none) and how the economy would work, not to mention even without government there still needs to be laws among many many other things, without a central "power" behind it or leader they will not be obeyed (unless your people/society are perfect) without boring you even more i end with the thought of it not being easy even if you control the game rules ;). END RANT.

Second (it's kind of linked to the first but whatever). people are afraid of change especially on such a grand scale, therefor it does not matter that we have the intelligence, resources and need to do so what we lack is the MATURITY to do so, so unless we gain it things will not be able to change.

Third. i believe humans are inherently evil because irregardless of what a lot of people say i know for a fact that we all sometimes have hurtful thoughts towards others, if not thoughts, words, if not words, actions. all of which could hurt the person they are aimed at. also no matter where on earth you go there is conflict and there has been conflict since thousands of years ago (the beginning of man) and to thousands of years in the future brought on by humans stupidity and animosity towards ourselves. END RANT. (i would be more specific but i have a lot to cover)

and last but not least, fourth. i think i should explain my saying. ("a system with no system is not a system but an idea of the mentally blind") in reference to this discussion what i mean by it is that governments and countries are just like thoughts, they are in your head or on paper so, they have no system based on reality or anchored to existence!!! for example if everyone would forget convention and what they can and cannot do tomorrow we would all be free from government!!! people just can't grasp true independence... yet. anyways i digress the point is that governments, countries and everything to do with them are all in our heads they aren't real!!!

Quote:
police service.(in context to my comment previous: "governments oversee/run the police service, fire service, through the bureaucracy")
Just because the government run/oversee this currently does that mean it can only be run/overseen by the government?
I'd imagine competing private-security firms could do as good a job. It's not like they don't exist today.
i must ask (non offensively so please do not take it as hammering OK) what it would be like with bands of armed mercenary's playing at "good guy" with each group only following the laws of their leaders design?

Quote:
fire service(in context to my comment previous: "governments oversee/run the police service, fire service, through the bureaucracy")
Just because the government run/oversee this currently does that mean it can only be run/overseen by the government?
yes because as previously mentioned we are not mature enough to wake up and do what is of our own desire.

In the past fire brigades have actually been privately run. There's then massive scope for voluntary institutions here. and whom pray tell pays them for our patrimony of their services? and without said "thing" paying them how would they make money?

Quote:
without any of the "security" the government also provides we would all be killing each other.
You've given me no reason to believe this.
as previously mentioned people are to comfortable with the way things are and cannot wake up one day and live life completely differently way. and to the point of all of us killing each other. LOOK AT AFRICA. do you see on the news about the continuing genocide of those people under a government either without the ability, morals or who are a part of it i think not. LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST. even before they became "civilized" they have been killing each other since before they met Europeans way of "existence" also do you see how selfish people are? on the news i am fed up to hear them whining endlessly about a few Americans beheaded and yet barely talk about the 100's of thousands that have already been KILLED in the region not to mention the MILLIONS that have been driven out!!! they disgust me. LOOK AT ASIA. Pol Pot, Khmer rouge, Mao Zedong, Chiang Kai-shek, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-sung, Hideki Tojo, to name just a few mass murderers!!! LOOK AT AMERICA. slavery, genocide and racism: the main pillars of the America we know (north and south America not the country specifically) to say the least. LOOK AT EUROPE. Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Tsar Ivan the terrible, WW1, WW2 to name a few. in revelation this also supports my opinion that man is inherently evil, that humanity is doomed to fail and that inhumanity is a big part of humanity. END RANT.

Quote:
sorry i would have an endless rant.
I don't mind. This is actually an interesting topic. I'd rather that than see it die. Well did i make you regret it? :D if not then sorry i am sapped i cant do it any more. :)

[DeadEyes]

This theory a society could run without governmental leaders (which is happening since the dawn of civilized societies) is absolutely ridiculous. You need people in charge taking the decisions, it's just obvious.

[Vlerchan]

... the main reason we cannot do without government is that frankly, we have come to far to go without it ...
The main reason we cannot do without slavery is that frankly we have come to far to go without it.

See why that's an awful argument?

Regardless I'm not suggesting we suddenly abolish government tomorrow. It would come after a series of reforms.

let's just say that you are the creator of everything (god) and you decided to make humanity the way you see fit. now first you would have to make the people, their memory's, the planet, etc. memory's are especially important because if you give people the memory's instead of just dropping them in the middle of confusion no good will come out, so if you give them memory of your "perfect system" they will be comfortable.
I don't understand this at all.

now that the biggest challenge is out of the way you can focus on the making of a society (no mean feat by any standards) which will also be integral to keeping things together although you'd have to keep in mind the next step.
I don't need to create a society. It will form naturally from the conditions I create.

the next step would be actually forming public services, who drives them, etc.
I propose that services are provided by competing firms as necessary.

then you would have to come up with currency (or have none)
Let the market decide. Whatever happens to facilitate best trade will arise naturally as currency. This is what has happened historically.

and how the economy would work
Laissez-faire capitalism.

not to mention even without government there still needs to be laws among many many other things, without a central "power" behind it or leader they will not be obeyed.
I linked above to a essay which explains how the legal system would function. Please give it a read.

people are afraid of change especially on such a grand scale, therefor it does not matter that we have the intelligence, resources and need to do so what we lack is the MATURITY to do so, so unless we gain it things will not be able to change.
First, this isn't as a critique of anarchism.

Second, I never called for immediate change, I'd imagine legislative reforms would be more feasible.

also no matter where on earth you go there is conflict and there has been conflict since thousands of years ago.
I would agree this is a problem if a mechanism to deal with it hadn't been proposed.

i mean by it is that governments and countries are just like thoughts, they are in your head or on paper so, they have no system based on reality or anchored to existence!!!
No. Governments and states very much exist objectively.

And their rules exist objectivily as long as they maintain a monopoly on force to back them up.

for example if everyone would forget convention and what they can and cannot do tomorrow we would all be free from government!!!
I agree that if we stopped maintaining government and law then both would cease to exist.

I'm not seeing how this works as a critique of anarchism though.

i must ask (non offensively so please do not take it as hammering OK) what it would be like with bands of armed mercenary's playing at "good guy" with each group only following the laws of their leaders design?
First they would be enforcing private property rights and not "laws of their leaders design".

Second they would cease to exist as a force if they weren't acting with sufficiently quality as to attract customer subscriptions.

yes because as previously mentioned we are not mature enough to wake up and do what is of our own desire.
I think it has a lot more to do with the government holding a legal monopoly on the provision of fire fighting services.

and whom pray tell pays them for our patrimony of their services? and without said "thing" paying them how would they make money?
I'd imagine people would pay subscription (like an insurance) to one of the competing firms. If their house went on fire then the firm would put it out.

as previously mentioned people are to comfortable with the way things are and cannot wake up one day and live life completely differently way.
Even if we pretend I'm going for sudden change because you keep bringing this point up - there's been significant civil unrest since the onset of the Great Recession.

Lots of people aren't happy with the current system.

LOOK AT AFRICA.
I see problems caused by governments.

LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST.
I see problems caused by governments.

LOOK AT ASIA.
I see problems caused by governments.

All the mass-murderers you listed where enabled by leading a government.

LOOK AT AMERICA.
Slavery would not have occurred under a system of inviolable property-rights.

Genocide was a product of governance.

Racism is unfortunate. Though I don't see why people being bigoted means that anarchy can't work.

LOOK AT EUROPE. Stalin, Hitler, Winston Churchill, Napoleon, Tsar Ivan the terrible, WW1, WW2 to name a few.
I again see problems caused by government.

in revelation this also supports my opinion that man is inherently evil, that humanity is doomed to fail and that inhumanity is a big part of humanity.
I'm not bothered to counter with examples of people doing good. I presume you realise that exists too.

What I think your evidence might support is that some people are 'evil' and the existence of government allows them to perpetuate this evilness on a grander scale - with legitimacy

---

This theory a society could run without governmental leaders (which is happening since the dawn of civilized societies) is absolutely ridiculous.
I'm still waiting on you to explain to me how it's "ridiculous".

Your fallacious appeal to tradition is also fallacious.

You need people in charge taking the decisions, it's just obvious.
It's not to me. Would you mind explaining?

[Soundtrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD72LbIk02M)

[DeadEyes]

Your fallacious appeal to tradition is also fallacious.
It's not to me. Would you mind explaining?

It's not because you said it twice in the same sentence it does mean it is. Well, if you can't see that without people in charge it would be anarchy and chaos then nothing I could say would bring you to reason.

[Vlerchan]

It's not because you said it twice in the same sentence it does mean it is.

Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

It's a fallacy.

Well, if you can't see that without people in charge it would be anarchy and chaos then nothing I could say would bring you to reason.
In the model I've been outlining their would still be organisation fashioned through the free-market system.

That's the bit you seem to not get.

[DeadEyes]

"this is right because we've always done it this way."
It's a fallacy.
In the model I've been outlining their would still be organisation fashioned through the free-market system.

The model you have been outlining is a THEORY and I believe it to be more than just false, there's a lot more chances it's right that HISTORY will repeat itself, since it was done that way, than your theory actually becoming reality.

[Vlerchan]

The model you have been outlining is a THEORY and I believe it to be more than just false, there's a lot more chances it's right that HISTORY will repeat itself, since it was done that way, than your theory actually becoming reality.
I firstly don't see how it being a theory takes away from it.

I secondly would appreciate if you explained why it was false instead of just stating it is.

I thirdly have no idea what 'history' you're talking about. Do you mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Iceland#Medieval_Iceland)?

[DeadEyes]

I firstly don't see how it being a theory takes away from it.
I secondly would appreciate if you explained why it was false instead of just stating it is.


Your beautiful little theory doesn't take in consideration the most important factor: the human nature. humans when left to themselves, are prone to spread anarchy and chaos and if you fail to see that in the history of humanity in general, you seriously need to get a clue.

[Vlerchan]

humans when left to themselves, are prone to spread anarchy and chaos and if you fail to see that in the history of humanity in general, you seriously need to get a clue.
I've several times pointed to a source which outlines how disputes would be dealt with.

Unless that's not what you mean. In which case you're going to need to be more exact. Give examples.

---

I also don't believe human nature exists.

[DeadEyes]

I also don't believe human nature exists.

In that case then, I'm done here.

[Vlerchan]

In that case then, I'm done here.
I guess I'm sorry I don't possess your religious-like belief in such unverifiable concepts.

[DeadEyes]

I guess I'm sorry I don't possess your religious-like belief in such unverifiable concepts.

If you seriously believe you need to be religious to believe in the human nature and it's paterns then, I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.
Such patterns are verifiable throughout the whole history of humanity which unceasingly repeats itself.

[Vlerchan]

If you seriously believe you need to be religious to believe in the human nature and it's paterns then, I'm afraid I can't do anything for you.
I'm saying that it is impossible to verify whether the same traits are found in every single human being from birth - because it is.

Regardless we're getting off-topic so unless you are about to make some relevant critiques of ideology I'm proposing I'm going to stop responding.

Have a nice day, DeadEyes.

[DeadEyes]

I'm saying that it is impossible to verify whether the same traits are found in every single human being from birth - because it is.

Ever heard the saying, we're all the same? People mostly all have the same feelings, the same reactions, desire and will, it's just plain obvious, we have the same brain, It's really not that hard to verify and has nothing to do with religion and no, it's not even out of topic, you are elusive about the fact human nature and the way society would go without leaders is intimately related.

[Vlerchan]

Ever heard the saying, we're all the same?
No. Which perhaps might be because we're not. I would agree we're similar. Though then we're all growing up in the same environment.

People mostly all have the same feelings, the same reactions, desire and will.
You mean that there are exceptions to human nature? What makes it human nature then?

... we have the same brain ...
We all have brains. I have no idea why you think we all have the exact same brain.

... and has nothing to do with religion ...
It requires a substantial amount of belief.

But go look for some peer-reviewed studies outlining how human nature exists if you want.

it's not even out of topic you are elusive about the fact human nature and the way society would go without leaders is intimately related.
You're yet to explain how this 'human nature' is linked to the infeasibility of anarchy. You just seemed to mention 'human nature' - with a thinly veiled adhom thrown in - and expect me to bow to your wisdom in the matter.

Please do explain how this 'human nature' makes anarchy infeasible though. I'll pretend I believe it exists for the moment.

[DeadEyes]

No. Which perhaps might be because we're not. I would agree we're similar. Though then we're all growing up in the same environment.

You mean that there are exceptions to human nature? What makes it human nature then?

We all have brains. I have no idea why you think we all have the exact same brain.

You're yet to explain how this 'human nature' is linked to the infeasibility of anarchy.

Please do explain how this 'human nature' makes anarchy infeasible though. I'll pretend I believe it exists for the moment.

So, because you never heard a saying or a proverb, it means it has to be wrong? The environment has nothing to do with us having the same nature. Every rule has an exception (another saying you might have never heard perhaps?) And so you think we're all born with brains that all are drastically different? I have already explained history repeats itself because of human nature, you are asking questions that has the same answer to why you asked them in the first place again.

[Vlerchan]

So, because you never heard a saying or a proverb, it means it has to be wrong?
I didn't use that as my basis to disagree with you.

The environment has nothing to do with us having the same nature.
I never said it did.

I said our environment is why lots of us (within a certain context) are quite similar.

Every rule has an exception.
In other words: human beings aren't inherently anything? and human nature doesn't exist?

Interesting.

And so you think we're all born with brains that all are drastically different?
I claimed we weren't born with the exact same brains.

I have no idea how different they are though.

I have already explained history repeats itself because of human nature, you are asking questions that has the same answer to why you asked them in the first place again.
Yes. You made some very vague claims. I've asked you to expand on them already. I'll ask again could you please expand on these claims. I can't address your points unless I understand them.

i.e., what "history" are we talking about? and what does "human nature" refer to?

[DeadEyes]

I can't address your points unless I understand them.

From now on, I shall address to you as captain obvious. Again, (*sigh*) It's in the human nature (that's just what we do) to spread chaos and anarchy (which we have been doing since the dawn of humanity) and will do so if nobody is in charge.

[Vlerchan]

Again, (*sigh*) It's in the human nature (that's just what we do) to spread chaos and anarchy (which we have been doing since the dawn of humanity) and will do so if nobody is in charge.
Right. I don't see why you keep acting like I haven't proposed a system of private courts to deal with disputes.

[Remora]

Anarchy? Mafia / mobs (is there a difference?) will take on the role of a much more cruel government. People will be looting and murdering and... stuff. It's just bad. :c

[DeadEyes]

People will be looting and murdering and... stuff. It's just bad.

People will indeed do that, there's no doubt about that in my mind, that's just what people do, human nature like I said (I believe the human nature is fundamentally bad).

[ImagineRepublicCity]

I think the without government thing will never work. I mean, even in the smallest of groups and packs, there is always a dominant mayor or leader, no matter what. Unless your group consisted of two people, no. I mean, doesn't have to be government per say, but a dominant figure must exist for anything to actually work.

(Sorry I didn't answer your questions like you threw them out, I just wasn't really sure how to answer them properly)

[DeadEyes]

I mean, doesn't have to be government per say, but a dominant figure must exist for anything to actually work.

Hail to the king.

[Vlerchan]

I mean, even in the smallest of groups and packs, there is always a dominant mayor or leader, no matter what.
Yes. But then I'm not arguing against authority existing.

I'm fine with "dominant figures" as long as they aren't threatening people with (the initiation of) violence to get things done.

[fairmaiden]

It would probably survive for two days, before all hell breaks loose and people will fight, kill, steal, etc. Just breaking every law in general. I don't think it would survive, but if it did, it would probably be the case of having cordoned off/hidden living areas that would probably be only for the rich.

[ImagineRepublicCity]

Yes. But then I'm not arguing against authority existing.

I'm fine with "dominant figures" as long as they aren't threatening people with (the initiation of) violence to get things done.

Well, even so, considering our population is so large, it is almost impossible to split off into...let's say groups of 10, or even 20 and doing things. Considering our way of living is not what it used to be to, our environment has been built up for thousands of people, and one person can't tell a thousand people what to do without consequence for their actions (positive or negative consequence that is).

[Typhlosion]

Yes. But then I'm not arguing against authority existing.

I'm fine with "dominant figures" as long as they aren't threatening people with (the initiation of) violence to get things done.

Here's my issue with anarchy: wouldn't private law enforcement businesses tend to form an oligopoly and then, being the majority, evolve into some form of oppression? What would guarantee such hypothetical society that this does not happen?

Also, what about a state with privatized law enforcement?

[DeadEyes]

Yes. But then I'm not arguing against authority existing.


Here's my issue with anarchy: wouldn't private law enforcement businesses tend to form an oligopoly and then, being the majority, evolve into some form of oppression?

From government to dictatorship then.

[Vlerchan]

Well, even so, considering our population is so large, it is almost impossible to split off into...let's say groups of 10, or even 20 and doing things.
But firms still manage to do so every day.

Then the firms sell into a market of thousands and the response (demand) gives them feedback on their product (tells them what to do next) so greater organisation is fashioned through market mechanisms.

Though I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean here exactly. If the above is irrelevant would you mind rephrasing?

Here's my issue with anarchy: wouldn't private law enforcement businesses tend to form an oligopoly and then, being the majority, evolve into some form of oppression?
Can you name a service-oligopoly that doesn't exist within the context of a oligopsony or monopsony (market of few buyers or a single buyer) or isn't government mandated? This is because services tend to be easier to reproduce and barriers to entry are largely nonexistent allowing new firms to flood to market if it seems like supernormal profits are being made (i.e., when the insufficient number of sellers are charging higher prices in response to demand being greater than their fielded supply at a market-level). I agree it is still possible that oligopolies might form - I'd imagine brand proliferation would be a big thing here - but I don't think it is very likely.

It's also simply the case that if one massive provider of law enforcement did exist and it did become oppressive (I'd prefer if this was defined but I'll work with what I have in my head - secular-ISIL) then I'd imagine it would be quick to lose the subscriptions that made it powerful in the first place - either through nonpayment or in the face of coercion population transfers.

Also, what about a state with privatized law enforcement?
It's possible. Though I'd imagine it has a lot bigger chance of going oligopoly.

[ImagineRepublicCity]

But firms still manage to do so every day.

Then the firms sell into a market of thousands and the response (demand) gives them feedback on their product (tells them what to do next) so greater organisation is fashioned through market mechanisms.



Well, I understand what you're saying there, but I still think that someone always controls this all. In all honesty, I don't particularly understand what you're trying to say here...(my explaining is horrible so I'll rephrase it for you)
Basically, I'm saying that the way modern day society has been created, deems having no government or powerful figure almost impossible to live in, considering most of the things we do are kept in place thanks to government.

[Vlerchan]

Well, I understand what you're saying there, but I still think that someone always controls this all.
I'm not sure what you mean here again.

I agree that consumer interaction with markets (i.e., demand) influences the prices charged (in the short-term) and amount supplied (in the long term) and so the actions of firms are directed/controlled/organised. I don't consider this an issue.

So government (see: previous definition (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2965166&postcount=21)) isn't necessary.

---

If I'm misunderstanding again would you mind defining "someone" and "all" as best as possible? Thanks.

Basically, I'm saying that the way modern day society has been created, deems having no government or powerful figure almost impossible to live in, considering most of the things we do are kept in place thanks to government.
Yes. Currently government offers lots of services.

All of them could be offered by private companies. Already in this thread I've gone through the judiciary, the police, and the fire department.

[normalperson]

hello vlerchan sorry it took me so long to get back to you.



The main reason we cannot do without slavery is that frankly we have come to far to go without it.

See why that's an awful argument?

but that is exactly my ideology and as a side note: the union had slaves and the civil war had nothing to do slavery.

Regardless I'm not suggesting we suddenly abolish government tomorrow. It would come after a series of reforms.

reforms through what... a government? you see the thing is I'm literally chuckling right now because were so attached to it that our only solution to our problem is our problem!!!

I don't understand this at all.

sorry i was ranting.

I don't need to create a society. It will form naturally from the conditions I create.

yes but that kind of contradicts you saying "Regardless I'm not suggesting we suddenly abolish government tomorrow. It would come after a series of reforms."


I propose that services are provided by competing firms as necessary.

and those competing firms policy's/clients would be driven by the highest bidder.

Let the market decide. Whatever happens to facilitate best trade will arise naturally as currency. This is what has happened historically.

well i can't poke holes in that logic... i guess your right... but the only problem with that is that you would have to start a civilization off at the beginning level for it to slowly be able to accommodate itself in a more mature role for the economies and systems of today.


Laissez-faire capitalism.

i think i agree with you if everything else fits the role. but in the way things are today with governments i thing state capitalism is the best policy.


I linked above to a essay which explains how the legal system would function. Please give it a read.

Where?


First, this isn't as a critique of anarchism.

Second, I never called for immediate change, I'd imagine legislative reforms would be more feasible.

yeah i guess if people were willing to try. but like i said earlier "reforms through what... a government? you see the thing is I'm literally chuckling right now because were so attached to it that our only solution to our problem is our problem!!!"


I would agree this is a problem if a mechanism to deal with it hadn't been proposed.

who would enforce that mechanism?


No. Governments and states very much exist objectively.

And their rules exist objectivily as long as they maintain a monopoly on force to back them up.

human rules and laws do not exist for if they were real we and nothing caused by us could break them which is not true. also the same is true with governments because just putting up a sign on some other persons land it would not make it your land, much like setting up barb wire around your house does not mean(according to our human laws) it is your own country. and yes if you have a monopoly on force you can be quite "persuasive" to say the least.


I agree that if we stopped maintaining government and law then both would cease to exist.

I'm not seeing how this works as a critique of anarchism though.

I'm not critiquing anarchism because that stupid word made by "rebels" is exactly how the word sounds (gritty and unrefined)

First they would be enforcing private property rights and not "laws of their leaders design".

Second they would cease to exist as a force if they weren't acting with sufficiently quality as to attract customer subscriptions.

who would keep them away from abuse of their power? if you have weapons you have power, if you have power you have control, if you have control you name the rules of the game. where do you think governments came from other then the abuse of power? and second they would not even come close to needing lot's of customer subscriptions, all they need is one extremely influential person and boom you have a police state with demi-lords all vying for power!!!


I think it has a lot more to do with the government holding a legal monopoly on the provision of fire fighting services.

sorry I'm lost at this part.

I'd imagine people would pay subscription (like an insurance) to one of the competing firms. If their house went on fire then the firm would put it out.

who would enforce customer satisfaction because as previously mentioned multiple times humans are inherently evil. i mean really there would be no way to enforce company's to care for all their clients because they only need the funding of a few influential rich people.

Even if we pretend I'm going for sudden change because you keep bringing this point up - there's been significant civil unrest since the onset of the Great Recession.

Lots of people aren't happy with the current system.

but people are just not ready for change.


I see problems caused by governments.


I see problems caused by governments.


I see problems caused by governments.

All the mass-murderers you listed where enabled by leading a government.

Pol Pot. Khmer rouge?

yes but it was mainly the people who were below them who did it. and second

Slavery would not have occurred under a system of inviolable property-rights.

Genocide was a product of governance.

and governance was a product of people, and genocide was committed by people.

Racism is unfortunate. Though I don't see why people being bigoted means that anarchy can't work.

...slavery...discrimination... it will not end with government only get worse.

I again see problems caused by government.

and who leads all those governments?... people!!! the government can not work with all rusty broken cogs!!! and my point by that is that people are inherently evil!!!

I'm not bothered to counter with examples of people doing good. I presume you realise that exists too.

yes but overall the only problems we fix are the ones we caused in the first
place so... no offense... but... your point is... invalid

What I think your evidence might support is that some people are 'evil' and the existence of government allows them to perpetuate this evilness on a grander scale - with legitimacy

yesss right on exactly you got it!!! (not smartassing or being sarcastic)

anyways overall i think you've managed to persuade me somewhat that it might be feasible some how but still a few more kinks need to be figured out.

sorry if i made any mistakes I'm late for watching Monty Python and the holy grail for the millionth time!!!

[Vlerchan]

but that is exactly my ideology and as a side note: the union had slaves and the civil war had nothing to do slavery.
I presume there's a reason why it's your ideology then. You'll need to explain that.

I also don't get the relevance of your side notes. I don't disagree with either statement regardless.

reforms through what... a government? you see the thing is I'm literally chuckling right now because were so attached to it that our only solution to our problem is our problem!!!
I have no idea why you'd think rolling back government power wouldn't involve government at some point.

yes but that kind of contradicts you saying "Regardless I'm not suggesting we suddenly abolish government tomorrow. It would come after a series of reforms."
I don't see how. Please explain.

---

I'm also defining "society" as the collection of societal norms here.

and those competing firms policy's/clients would be driven by the highest bidder.
These competing firms would supply at the in-and-around market equilibrium price which is rarely if ever the highest bid.

but the only problem with that is that you would have to start a civilization off at the beginning level for it to slowly be able to accommodate itself in a more mature role for the economies and systems of today.
No you wouldn't.

but in the way things are today with governments i thing state capitalism is the best policy.
You'll need to explain why if you want a proper response.

Where?
http://mises.org/library/society-without-state

who would enforce that mechanism?
http://mises.org/library/society-without-state

human rules and laws do not exist for if they were real we and nothing caused by us could break them which is not true.
The law exists regardless if you break it or not. If it didn't exist once you broke it then there wouldn't be consequences (jailtime etc.) for their breach.

also the same is true with governments because just putting up a sign on some other persons land it would not make it your land, much like setting up barb wire around your house does not mean(according to our human laws) it is your own country.
It does if you've the necessary force to back these claims up.

who would keep them away from abuse of their power?
Here's my response to Typhlosion:

Can you name a service-oligopoly that doesn't exist within the context of a oligopsony or monopsony (market of few buyers or a single buyer) or isn't government mandated? This is because services tend to be easier to reproduce and barriers to entry are largely nonexistent allowing new firms to flood to market if it seems like supernormal profits are being made (i.e., when the insufficient number of sellers are charging higher prices in response to demand being greater than their fielded supply at a market-level). I agree it is still possible that oligopolies might form - I'd imagine brand proliferation would be a big thing here - but I don't think it is very likely.

It's also simply the case that if one massive provider of law enforcement did exist and it did become oppressive (I'd prefer if this was defined but I'll work with what I have in my head - secular-ISIL) then I'd imagine it would be quick to lose the subscriptions that made it powerful in the first place - either through nonpayment or in the face of coercion population transfers.

i.e., market mechanisms.

and second they would not even come close to needing lot's of customer subscriptions, all they need is one extremely influential person and boom you have a police state with demi-lords all vying for power!!!
Another user called Korashk once mentioned that it was easy to produce reductio ad absurdum arguments against anarcho-capatalism due to its nature. I agree. Let's break this down though:

Where does this individual get their influence from? Do you believe it's likely that he'll retain his instance once he starts setting things up to murder people?

Do you believe that there will be no joint-opposition from literally every other individual against any to impose some form of despotism?

sorry I'm lost at this part.
Firms which provide firefighting services don't exist because it's illegal to provide these services.

who would enforce customer satisfaction because as previously mentioned multiple times humans are inherently evil.
You're yet to get anywhere near proving this.

i mean really there would be no way to enforce company's to care for all their clients because they only need the funding of a few influential rich people.
If all firms in the market are offering poor service then that just lowers barriers to entry for new firms.

The idea that firms can just rely on a few people supporting them in order to exist is completely detached from reality at that.

Pol Pot. Khmer rouge?
"I see problems caused by governments".

and governance was a product of people, and genocide was committed by people.
No. This is just untrue.

All the governments you referred to where authoritarian dictatorships who were very much not a product of the people.

...slavery...discrimination... it will not end with government only get worse.
How?

and who leads all those governments?... people!!! the government can not work with all rusty broken cogs!!! and my point by that is that people are inherently evil!!!
I'll repeat what I said:

"What I think your evidence might support is that some people are 'evil' and the existence of government allows them to perpetuate this evilness on a grander scale - with legitimacy"

i.e., it's government that's enabling people to be at their worst; "evil" becomes increasingly limited with increased decentralisation of power.

yes but overall the only problems we fix are the ones we caused in the first
place so... no offense... but... your point is... invalid
"people doing good doesn't count because it's a response to people doing bad" is a non-sequitar.

[Soundtrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FvT3FUgP7U)

[phuckphace]

"people will just logically decide to stop patronizing an unethical/shitty business" yeah, like they do with Walmart? lel/lmao this is what I love about lolbertarians, their utter detachment from reality and more specifically people.

a quick review for the slow students over at Mises and Cato: consumers (especially proles) are as a rule mindless drones who literally do not give a single fuck where their stuff comes from as long as it is as cheap as humanely possible. Walmart could change its name to Holocaust & Holocaust Accessories GmbH and build its products using Jewish camp labor and 100 gorillion people would still shop there as long as prices are a dollar less than the local competition.

oh and since it's a lolbertarian society you're going to have 100 gorillion more proles and no middle class so there goes the economic stability that comes with social stability. sounds gnarly.

[boytoynamedtroy]

Can it survive?

How will it survive?

Would it be superior to the current state of affairs or not?

I don't think humanity can survive without government. After all, everything exists for a reason. I think government was formed, because humans in the past searched for a solution to control the population and prevent anarchy. Even chieftains in the past are part of a government. We've all seen The Purge, right? (If not, check it out, if you want.) I think that's how humanity would turn out without government. And no, it most certainly wouldn't be in any way superior to the current state of affairs.