Anarchy vs. an Ordered Government

[Dann]

Probably the only aspect of anarchy that MIGHT attract me is the abolition of the concepts of marriage and monogamy.

Sow your oats everywhere!

Otherwise give me an efficient and powerful government that 1) manages to gets things done, 2) amasses wealth, power and resources, and 3) provides and cares for its people, never mind if it ends up being on the authoritarian side.

 

[mdwh]

So, if it isn't Communism, then it would promote the purest form of Capitalism? That might be a very good idea then... Hmm...

Yeah, this is what I was hinting at earlier - in my opinion, the abolition of the state would most likely lead to some kind of entirely laissez-faire capitalist society, as people are always going to be trade, and you need some kind of "state" to enforce something where the economy is planned by everyone, and where the means of production are shared.

Yet anyone who identifies as an Anarchist seems to hate capitalism more than they dislike Governments, and will insist that Anarchy will not have any capitalism in it:

No, because capitalism inherently restricts freedom. Fair trade is more free than free trade.

So what happens in your anarchy when I trade my goods or my labour for someone else's? How do you enforce that fair trade?

In my experience, there are two meanings of "Anarchy". There's a society with no state - and we have no way of knowing how that would work, or how peaceful it would be. But capitalism may still exist in some form.

Then there's the system which "Anarchists" describe, which seems to be some form of 100% socialist or communist society, but the key distinction being each society is very small. I'm not saying it's unworkable (though I have my criticisms). But this is not a society without a state - it's just a society with a very small state. It's a matter of opinion to say that this society would be more "free" than any other. There would still be laws - at least, you can't have it both ways and claim we won't have to follow any laws and police won't exist, but also say there'll be this group of people who punish people for misbehaving. Hierarchies could still exist. There will still be differences in wealth and power - unless you have a state to sieze it from them.

And lastly, you can't just say "and everyone will behave nice and there will be no crime because people will disagree with it and there will be no pollution because it will be a green anarchy". That's not an economic or political system, that's wishful thinking.

Allow me to present my own suggestion: Green-everybody's-nice-to-each-other-Capitalism. It works like capitalism, but nobody pollutes, there is no crime because people disagree with it, and everyone is nice to each other.

This is what capitalism would be like, but no "true" capitalist society has ever been tried...

 

[tomsnowman123]

Yes, you'd definitely be welcome on my island Tom. I will save you a spot in my new country's government.

Cool, thanks.

So what happens in your anarchy when I trade my goods or my labour for someone else's? How do you enforce that fair trade?

In my experience, there are two meanings of "Anarchy". There's a society with no state - and we have no way of knowing how that would work, or how peaceful it would be. But capitalism may still exist in some form.

Then there's the system which "Anarchists" describe, which seems to be some form of 100% socialist or communist society, but the key distinction being each society is very small. I'm not saying it's unworkable (though I have my criticisms). But this is not a society without a state - it's just a society with a very small state. It's a matter of opinion to say that this society would be more "free" than any other. There would still be laws - at least, you can't have it both ways and claim we won't have to follow any laws and police won't exist, but also say there'll be this group of people who punish people for misbehaving. Hierarchies could still exist. There will still be differences in wealth and power - unless you have a state to sieze it from them.

And lastly, you can't just say "and everyone will behave nice and there will be no crime because people will disagree with it and there will be no pollution because it will be a green anarchy". That's not an economic or political system, that's wishful thinking.

Allow me to present my own suggestion: Green-everybody's-nice-to-each-other-Capitalism. It works like capitalism, but nobody pollutes, there is no crime because people disagree with it, and everyone is nice to each other.

This is what capitalism would be like, but no "true" capitalist society has ever been tried...

With no large corporations and such, I think fair trade would become the system used in terms of trading, secondly, I was listing these objectives as a compromise, since I doubt I will ever see my goals come to fruition during my lifetime. And I know that not everybody will be hapy and great, it was, as you said, wishful thinking.

Your proposal seems to bring about the same flaws that it is claimed that mine has. There would be crime, capitalism would create an elitist society, and not everybody will agree. Although, as you said, true capitalism has not been accomplished.

 

[El_Machinae]

What you might be missing about capitalism is that it raises the wealth of a society more quickly than alternatives because it promotes investment.

Would you rather everyone be equally (or nearly equally) poor, or have a poor majority who're better of than Case A, but there's a rich minority?

In other words - would you rather no one have eyeglasses, or most people having eyeglasses and some people having laser-eye surgery?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I voted - A government that helps us along, but does not control everything we do. But it is fairly personal.

I like a government which taxes and spends, but is very open about it, and very democratic and listens to the people. One that works for the people, and does not place many restrictions on what peopel can and can't do with their own lifes.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

No, because capitalism inherently restricts freedom. Fair trade is more free than free trade.

Capitalism is economic freedom. If you give up economic freedom it is easy to loose social freedoms. Likewise, if you give up social freedoms, it is easy to loose economic freedoms. Free trade IS fair trade. If it weren't, the trade would not occur. Plus, you need a government body to regulate trade to make it "fairer." Anyway, who has a better grasp of the fairness of a trade than the people involved in it?

About the quality of life today compared to the hunter-gatherer tribes. In some ways it could be argued that life was better then but let me remind you of: stable food supply, internet, computers, tvs, radios, cars, medicine, education, longevity, etc. This argument reminds me of the question, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

 

[tomsnowman123]

Capitalism is economic freedom. If you give up economic freedom it is easy to loose social freedoms. Likewise, if you give up social freedoms, it is easy to loose economic freedoms. Free trade IS fair trade. If it weren't, the trade would not occur. Plus, you need a government body to regulate trade to make it "fairer." Anyway, who has a better grasp of the fairness of a trade than the people involved in it?

About the quality of life today compared to the hunter-gatherer tribes. In some ways it could be argued that life was better then but let me remind you of: stable food supply, internet, computers, tvs, radios, cars, medicine, education, longevity, etc. This argument reminds me of the question, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

I believe that capitalism causes the restriction of economic freedoms for some people.

And again, I am not advocating a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle these days, to many people would probably die.

 

[Panzeh]

I'm an anarchist who has no real beef with capitalism in terms of the entrepreneurial free market system. I do have issue with some of the advantages that government gives to some people(e.g. limited liability corporations). I do not think all forms of anarchism are mutually exclusive, but I do think anarchism will not be as comfortable as life is now, but such is the price of total freedom.

I don't think people these days are ready to pay the price for total freedom, though.

BTW, I think anarchy may be the end of wars, but it certainly won't be the end of violence.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I don't think people these days are ready to pay the price for total freedom, though.

BTW, I think anarchy may be the end of wars, but it certainly won't be the end of violence.

Unfortunately, both these points are true. The first one is rather dissapointing, but I will continue to work towards my goal.

 

[Narz]

Cool, thanks.

You're welcome, did you miss the irony?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I believe that capitalism causes the restriction of economic freedoms for some people.

But, as I have already stated, capitalism is economic freedom. Capitalism is about not having government control of the economy. There is no other economic system that does not have some degree government control of the economy therefore capitalism is the only possible economic system when there is no government.

I do not think all forms of anarchism are mutually exclusive, but I do think anarchism will not be as comfortable as life is now, but such is the price of total freedom.

The purpose of government (IMO) is to protect the freedoms of the people. Who will protect total freedom when the government is gone?

 

[tomsnowman123]

You're welcome, did you miss the irony?

With the word "government" you mean? That's what I assumed it was.

 

[Narz]

With the word "government" you mean? That's what I assumed it was.

Yep.

10char

 

[mdwh]

With no large corporations and such, I think fair trade would become the system used in terms of trading,

I agree that a capitalist society could be improved without the very large corporations - though I'm not convinced it would be better if it only consisted of very small ones either (e.g., I prefer shopping at my supermarket compared with the corner shop). Also, what would stop large corporations existing under Anarchy, formed by people in several communities (in the same way a corporation is not limited to a single country in our current society)?

Your proposal seems to bring about the same flaws that it is claimed that mine has.

Well yes that was the point, it wasn't a serious proposal

 

[tomsnowman123]

I agree that a capitalist society could be improved without the very large corporations - though I'm not convinced it would be better if it only consisted of very small ones either (e.g., I prefer shopping at my supermarket compared with the corner shop). Also, what would stop large corporations existing under Anarchy, formed by people in several communities (in the same way a corporation is not limited to a single country in our current society)?

Well yes that was the point, it wasn't a serious proposal

Large corporations wouldn't really be able to prosper under a green/eco-anarchy, with ecovillages, it would just not happen with how society would be.

I wasn't entirely sure if it was serious... now I know for sure.

 

[mdwh]

Large corporations wouldn't really be able to prosper under a green/eco-anarchy, with ecovillages, it would just not happen with how society would be.

Why wouldn't they prosper?

 

[tomsnowman123]

Why wouldn't they prosper?

I don't think they would exist since large consumer bases wouldn't exist, and since production of materials that would harm the enviroment would (hopefully) cease, the demand for such items would diminish, and local production and distribution would be emphasized.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I don't think they would exist since large consumer bases wouldn't exist, and since production of materials that would harm the enviroment would (hopefully) cease, the demand for such items would diminish, and local production and distribution would be emphasized.

There would still be a 6+ billion potential consumer base regardless of how much you spread the population. Unless of course you euthanize much of the population before forcibly relocating them to ecovillages.

 

[Dionysius]

There would still be a 6+ billion potential consumer base regardless of how much you spread the population. Unless of course you euthanize much of the population before forcibly relocating them to ecovillages.

isnt euthanise to kill for mercy? as opposed to massacre.

tomsnowman123, how would trade work in an anarchist society?
is there a currency, or is it barter?

 

[tomsnowman123]

isnt euthanise to kill for mercy? as opposed to massacre.

tomsnowman123, how would trade work in an anarchist society?
is there a currency, or is it barter?

Barter would be the form that doesn't require regulation or control, although I admit it would be hard for any society to get rid of currency.