Any Anarchist in the forum?

[Giz]

Er no.....you mentioned Somalia in connection with anarchy Wildcat. So what has it to with anarchy?

But Fiona, how would an anarchy prevent one or more thugs/gangsters/warlords from trying to sieze power? Would anti-thug vigilantism (and lynchings as you'd have no central prison system I expect) be encouraged? Or would there be some kind of police... which, if they are not to be a gang themselves, would imply some kind of rules and oversight... a government if you will.

 

[Fiona]

No idea Giz. I am not an anarchist.

The point is that conceptions of anarchy do not imply no order and they do not entail no ability to deal with such stuff either. They imply no standing authority but rather agreements between people about what needs to be done and how they will achieve it. The difference is the lack of central government.

 

[Giz]

That seems to be less anarchy and more simply emphasizing the role of local government.

(Which {channelling Wildcat} sounds more like Europe c. 1000 AD or Somalia now...)

 

[Fiona]

I do not think so since local government tends to be institutionalised: At least it is in the uk

 

[Giz]

Does it matter whether local government is institutionalised or not? If it fulfills the same function (and is based on agreement between people/democratic vote) then it would seem to be splitting hairs to call it anything else...?

 

[Fiona]

Yes it matters. If it is institutionalised it is not anarchy. At least I think that is so

 

[applecorped]

I should write a post on the No True Scotsman fallacy, and probably send copies to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.N. for all of the abuse it has taken on this forum alone. I doubt you have the slightest clue what the this fallacy entails; indeed, I "get the sense" that you, like others here, resort to such terminology to imbue vaguely desperate arguments with some higher authority.

From Wikipedia, quoting Anthony Flew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman



Crucially the No True Scotsman fallacy involves an after the fact change in positions. Let me see if I can find an example from recent memory, hmmmmm... well, it's sort of like asking if there are any examples of an anarchist society that did not "end up like Somalia," receiving an indisputable answer, and then stipulating new conditions.



It's not unheard of for human beings to respond to low-rent hyperbole with deadpan knowingness.

Nice example of the No True Scotch Tape fallacy. Nothing you write sticks.

 

[WildCat]

Er no.....you mentioned Somalia in connection with anarchy Wildcat. So what has it to with anarchy?

That is what anarchy will look like in practice.

Sure, the bratty kids might run wild for a few days, but then the grownups with guns take over and start carving out territory and destroying those in their way.

 

[Giz]

That is what anarchy will look like in practice.

Sure, the bratty kids might run wild for a few days, but then the grownups with guns take over and start carving out territory and destroying those in their way.

No way dude!

"The point is that conceptions of anarchy do not imply no order and they do not entail no ability to deal with such stuff either. They imply no standing authority but rather agreements between people about what needs to be done and how they will achieve it. "

So like, those grown ups with guns will just have to agree about what needs to be done and how they will {share the loot} achieve it. It'll be peace , love, and 2nd amendmentastic!

 

[Fiona]

That is what anarchy will look like in practice.

Sure, the bratty kids might run wild for a few days, but then the grownups with guns take over and start carving out territory and destroying those in their way.

Same sort of argument was made against democracy. Jury is still out, but so far it looks like it was wrong.

 

[Giz]

Same sort of argument was made against democracy. Jury is still out, but so far it looks like it was wrong.

But under a democracy the government has a monopoly on the use of force (police, army etc). What monopoly of force could an anarchy have*?

 

[Cain]

Nice example of the No True Scotch Tape fallacy. Nothing you write sticks.

Awwwww, still trailing me like a lost puppy, how cute. I'll overlook your own misuse of the word "fallacy" because you make no pretense about contributing anything. You're the best -- yes you are.

 

[Fiona]

But under a democracy the government has a monopoly on the use of force (police, army etc). What monopoly of force could an anarchy have*?

This was not known prior to the development of democracy. Exactly the same arguments were used to demonstrate it could not possibly work. Mob rule, you see

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But Fiona, how would an anarchy prevent one or more thugs/gangsters/warlords from trying to sieze power? Would anti-thug vigilantism (and lynchings as you'd have no central prison system I expect) be encouraged? Or would there be some kind of police... which, if they are not to be a gang themselves, would imply some kind of rules and oversight... a government if you will.

How do actual governments prevent one or more ceo/bankers/lawyers from achieving power? Lets see, a banker can gamble with the money of thousands, but when he losses everything, oh wait, he does not actually lose anything, he keeps all his "hard earned money", houses cars, you name it... and to hell with the rest. Well and why not you might ask, and the answer is simple, it is because what he did was not really bad, as say, robbing a purse to eat an hamburger. Now, is there a significant difference with this and what you depict? Ah, its true, this bankster didn't put a gun in the face of his clients, oh and he always acts according to the law (unless a lawyer finds a way to twist it for him of course).

 

[brodski]

Same sort of argument was made against democracy. Jury is still out, but so far it looks like it was wrong.

yup, the same argument was made against pure democracy, which is one of the many reasons why no modern state is democratic in that sense, what we have is the compromise of liberal democracy- a different beast entirely.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The question is: Is there any case of anarchy that is viable?

Maybe this will answer your question (taken from here):

History of anarchist communist societies

There have been several attempts both successful and unsuccessful at creating anarchist-communist societies throughout much of the world. Some anarchist-communists, especially Anarcho-primitivism forms of the theory argue that tribal societies are early forms of anarchist-communism. Egalitarian religious communities such as the Diggers Movement during the English Revolution could arguably be the first anarchist communist societies in modern history. Large communities and federations of communities such as Anarchist Catalonia and the Free Territory of revolutionary Ukraine are examples of anarchist-communism in 20th century Europe. The free territories of Hungary during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 could be seen as another example of large-scale successful anarcho-communism.
The Korean Anarchist Movement in North and South Korea led by Kim Jwa Jin showed a temporary success in bringing anarcho-communism to Korea. However, the success was short-lived and not nearly as widely spread as the anarchism in Spain or Hungary. Some consider the current existing anarchist nature of communities in Argentina and the Zapatista councils in Mexico to be anarcho-communist in nature. Others consider them to be collectivist or syndicalist.
Some parts of the free software community, the GNU movement and parts of the copyleft movement are a type of information and software gift economy (a gift economy being the preferred economic system of anarcho-communists). Programmers make their source code available, allowing anyone to copy and modify/improve the code. Individual programmers gain prestige and respect, and the community as a whole benefits from better software. Markus Giesler in his ethnography "Consumer Gift Systems" has developed music downloading as a system of social solidarity based on gift transactions.[66] [67] Some organizations such as online commons (such as the Wikimedia Commons), wikis and Indymedia are held up as examples of functioning anarcho-communistic organizations.

 

[Galileo]

I'm curious about how many of you are skeptics regarding supernatural stuff, but have no problems whatsoever and just accept the current political and economical systems. Can we be "true skeptics" if can reject the church but not the government?

I would have to state that I'm sort of a "anarchist communist", but I'm not quite sure if there is really a label for what I consider it would be a more advanced system of production, distribution and consumption of human made stuff and natural stuff.

Heck, I don't even agree with most current beliefs, like what exactly constitutes "a property". To put an example, we all can use the bus to get where we want, but it is not "ours" in the sense a car is. In the end "a property" is just a convention, a custom, and nothing more, it is not real outside a determinate culture (exactly like Allah or Jeovah)

I'm a minarchist who supports anarco-capitalism.

We have a two-party system, the Anarchist Party and the Anti-Christ Party.