My Case for Anarchy

[Anarchist]

Hey forumers, this is my first time posting on these forums so I would like to introduce myself. As you could tell by my username i am an anarchist. I believe that government is unnecessary for a peaceful and prosperous society to exist due to certain moral principles. I enjoy playing guitar and computer programming and I'm on the pursuit of personal growth.

Before I present my case we need to clarify what anarchy is not.

Anarchy does not imply chaos.
Anarchy is not Arnold Schwarzenegger riding naked on a motorcycle smashing everyone's face into buildings.(Though that would be really cool)

Anarchy literally means "no ruler" or no government.

Anarchy does imply freedom, no police, no government officials, all property is private, no regulations, ect.

Now you would probably say , "How can a society survive without government ? Who would regulate all the criminals that run a muck in the streets?"

Before we address this statement , let's look at some of the most fundamental moral principles that operate in society and human behavior.

1. Non-Aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle states that it is morally wrong to initiate(start) force against another human being such as : murder, rape, assault, theft, threatening violence against the victim in order to achieve a goal, ect.

You may use force in self-defense against a person that violates the non-aggression principle.

2.Property Rights

In Property Rights ,you own effects of your actions such as : houses ,cars, money,food,water,businesses, your life, ect.(Except other human beings of course). Basically you are 100% responsible for your life and the stuff you own.

Now the obvious question is, "Who is going uphold these fundamental moral principles?".Your first thought might be "government", but there is a flaw in that logic, let me explain. Government is described as a group of people having a monopoly on force in an area such as countries ,states, cities ect. You may ask, "How does it have a monopoly on force"? Well,Government is the only entity that has the right(supposedly) to initiate force on another human being, thus violating the non-aggression principle. It is also the only entity that has the supposed "moral" obligation to violate property rights. You may ask "How?". Well do you pay taxes on property? If so, why? You may say "That's the law and if I don't pay my taxes i could go to jail. And if I resist or try to run away they could shoot me or worse , kill me!!!". Well , doesn't that violate the non-aggression and property rights? You may say"Well, but what about the criminals ravage in the streets? Who's going to get rid of them?" Well why can't you or your friends get rid of them , why do we need an agency that violates these principles to get rid of people that violate the same principles the agency violates? Hypocrisy much?

I'm not saying that all people that work in government are evil and corrupt human beings. Some certainly are but most are not. Most genuinely believe that they are helping the community and some are, but why do we need to initiate force against other human beings? Why do we have laws? Aren't laws just pieces of paper that say "Do this or else"?

Reasons why Anarchy is not accepted by most people:

Fear of death and destruction
Fear of government
Fear of taking 100% responsiblity for their lives.

Can Anarchy Work?

Anarchy can only work if people remove the fear of what true freedom can bring them?

Im not saying anarchy is a perfect system, just a morally right one.

Please feel free to leave your comments and opinions on anarchy.

If you have any criticisms of anarchy please feel free to reply, i'll gladly respond when i can.

Many of my points come from Freedomain Radio ? The Home Page so if you like to check them out please feel free to do so.

Edit: Just clear things things up in a statement i have made about "you and your friends getting rid of the criminal" it was to make a point on consistency of initiating force on others, meaning, "why let other people do it when you can do it yourself", it is not advocating initiating force on the criminal. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[Andrew Gubb]

I used to identify as anarchist. I still resonate strongly with the movement, but I prefer to define myself by what I am for than what I'm against. Or maybe I prefer to be less defined in general and do whatever works to get things done. I'm not very political, prefering more grassroots change or non political leadership in changing the world. Or I like movements which seem to have a chance of reaching their goals. I'm not sure anarchy is likely to happen any time soon.

The ultimate problem is a lack of love. "Archy" comes from a lack of love. So we have to create it however we can - though this isn't lovey dovey love mind, it's revolution. Just not the sort of revolution most people think of when they hear the word.

All ways of creating love are good to me.

[Anarchist]

You are absolutely right about grassroots change, I used to think that changing the leader in power is going to bring about social change, but then i realized that change comes the the people instead of the leaders. That's why i mentioned that fear prevents people from attaining true freedom. But as i see events unfold
I see people waking up to what true freedom is really all about which makes me optimistic about the future. That's why I believe anarchy could work in the future.

You raised an excellent point on grassroots movements.

[JDuff]

I disagree that a lack of distribution is just. I think it leads to enormous inequality and people are penalised for circumstances beyond their control.

Whilst it claims more freedoms for individuals, these are formal and hollow freedoms. In the real world (and not on paper) it entails that a few have an awful lot, and a lot have very few. Furthermore, this is due to inheritance, where you happen to be born, your natural talents or lack of them (e.g. disabilities, mental deficiencies). In other words, for no reason other than brute luck, people's lives are incredibly determined. The disadvantaged in the natural lottery are completely dependent on the charity of the advantaged. For me, it conjures up images of a massive amount of people being forced to work in incredibly bad conditions for only enough pay to barely survive, whilst the enforcers protect the interests of the elite.

[ZephyrusX]

How does anarchy imply freedom? In your example, individuals forcefully strip the criminal of his/her ability to conduct a crime, and in doing so, take away his/her freedom. The very definition of a criminal suggests a system of morality or a Criminal code that is violated, which is a form of regulation. I don’t think most people want a society were absolute freedom reigns. Most people would qualify freedom with limiters, such as ‘so long as it does not harm anyone else’. I would not support your definition of aggression (rape, assault, murder), but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with interfering with another person’s actions so long as it maintains the assumed rights of other people (ie. right to life).

The only consistent thing I see about your definition of anarchy is the removal of a centralized power or government. Is that a good thing though? To continue your example of crime, would it be a good thing to strip Federal and municipal governments of their monopoly over the police force? Should the police force be privatized? What would be the ramifications of this decision? Would I not receive support and assistance from Police Company A if I did not pay for their services, and instead, paid for Police Company B?

[Anarchist]

I see where you are coming from jduff, and i agree with you that some people are born with more opportunities than others which may lead to the rich and poor classes, but from my experience and the experience of others, government often supports the rich class and vise versa for their own personal gain which often causes the poor to become (rightfully so)angry, hence the massive Occupy Wall Street movement. But when government tries to redistribute wealth to the poor they often do a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ job of it, and not only do the poor suffer in the long term but the people that were force to pay for the poor also suffer.In my experience charities do more good to the poor and needy then government redistribution of wealth. Example: New Orleans Katrina Disaster, charities built 10x more homes than FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) did.

I appreciate your critique of my position JDuff, thank you.

[taylor]

What's stopping a group from organizing and claiming control of land through force, then creating a constitution and an entire system of government?

I seriously think if you had anarchy it'd only be a matter of time before it returned to a government, and probably under a more totalitarian system because the subjects will resist the rule.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

How does anarchy imply freedom? In your example, individuals forcefully strip the criminal of his/her ability to conduct a crime, and in doing so, take away his/her freedom. The very definition of a criminal suggests a system of morality or a Criminal code that is violated, which is a form of regulation. I don’t think most people want a society were absolute freedom reigns. Most people would qualify freedom with limiters, such as ‘so long as it does not harm anyone else’. I would not support your definition of aggression (rape, assault, murder), but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with interfering with another person’s actions so long as it maintains the assumed rights of other people (ie. right to life).

The only consistent thing I see about your definition of anarchy is the removal of a centralized power or government. Is that a good thing though? To continue your example of crime, would it be a good thing to strip Federal and municipal governments of their monopoly over the police force? Should the police force be privatized? What would be the ramifications of this decision? Would I not receive support and assistance from Police Company A if I did not pay for their services, and instead, paid for Police Company B?

ZephyrusX , I apologize for the lack of clarity when i mentioned the individuals stripping away a criminal ability to commit a crime. I was making a statement of why another group of people(government) should have the right to stop him instead of the individuals affected by the criminal.(For the sake of consistency). On the non-aggression principle , what would your definition be of aggression if you don't agree with mine just so were on the same page.
On the issue of privatized police , i do not believe in the initiation of the use of force against another human being, (with the exception of self-defence, which is not "initiating" force). So a privatized police force would violate the non-aggression principle. As for the case of the criminal, people have the right of self-defense so if the criminal threatens them , the criminal could be shot in
the act of self defense.

I appreciate your post Zeph. If you have any more questions please feel free to reply, thank you.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by taylor

What's stopping a group from organizing and claiming control of land through force, then creating a constitution and an entire system of government?

I seriously think if you had anarchy it'd only be a matter of time before it returned to a government, and probably under a more totalitarian system because the subjects will resist the rule.

In theory the people would stop the group from claiming control of the land, and you are right about anarchy turning into a totalitarian system , it has happened many times in the past. But the people turned to anarchy in the state of fear which later turned into a totalitarian system. But in my opinion ,the only way for anarchy to work is in a state of love and philosophy.(Which can only happen if the people face their fears.)

Thank you for your reply

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Anarchist

Now the obvious question is, "Who is going uphold these fundamental moral principles?"

You may say"Well, but what about the criminals ravage in the streets? Who's going to get rid of them?" Well why can't you or your friends get rid of them , why do we need an agency that violates these principles to get rid of people that violate the same principles the agency violates? Hypocrisy much?

Actually, it's your logic in this statement that is the hypocrisy.

Many years ago, a bunch of people (ie "you or your friends") got together and did exactly what you said: They decided to get rid of the criminals themselves. They did this by establishing a government institution that would do it for them.

So your argument is basically: Destroy all of the institutions that we are currently using to keep ourselves safe, then when we are at risk of being killed, robbed, and enslaved, we should band together and re-build those institutions to keep ourselves safe again?

Makes no sense to me.

Sidenote: If you want to see the real-world effect of anarchy, just look at Somalia and similar countries in Africa that have ongoing genocides all the time, along with mass starvation because the gun-toting mercenaries steal food and supplies from the poor. An anarchy isn't a system of government; it's merely a temporary lack of a system of government. With a lack of government in a country, anyone is free to come in and establish their own government and then poof: the anarchy is gone, and has been replaced by the guy with the biggest guns being your new dictator.

The paradox/irony of a government establishing rules is that having the right rules in place actually increases freedom, not decreases it. For instance, having murder be illegal and having a police force that will respond and be at your house in 5 minutes if you say someone is trying to murder you, gives you the freedom to live your life without living in fear all day of being murdered as you walk down the street or sleep in your bed. Yes, in an anarchy where no such rules exist, you have the "freedom" to kill someone, but you paradoxically lose the freedom to live without fear of being murdered.

Most people would probably give up the freedom to murder others, in exchange for the freedom to live without being murdered. The same applies to being robbed from, having your property vandalized, etc, which is why those laws exist in the first place.

[ZephyrusX]

You might find this thread interesting.

Anarchy - Infeasible or Inevitable?

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Actually, it's your logic in this statement that is the hypocrisy.

Many years ago, a bunch of people (ie "you or your friends") got together and did exactly what you said: They decided to get rid of the criminals themselves. They did this by establishing a government institution that would do it for them.

So your argument is basically: Destroy all of the institutions that we are currently using to keep ourselves safe, then when we are at risk of being killed, robbed, and enslaved, we should band together and re-build those institutions to keep ourselves safe again?

Makes no sense to me.

Sidenote: If you want to see the real-world effect of anarchy, just look at Somalia and similar countries in Africa that have ongoing genocides all the time, along with mass starvation because the gun-toting mercenaries steal food and supplies from the poor. An anarchy isn't a system of government; it's merely a temporary lack of a system of government. With a lack of government in a country, anyone is free to come in and establish their own government and then poof: the anarchy is gone, and has been replaced by the guy with the biggest guns being your new dictator.

Thank you for replying to this thread , You have pointed out the need for clarity in my post. My point in this thread is to point out that government is no different from a mafia-style gang, in violating moral principles. I'm not advocating a massive mob-like protest destroying everything in sight. What i am doing is offering a different perspective on many of our beliefs of what society is.

On the point of Somalia ,check out the youtube video True News 18:Somalia
It offers a different perspective on before and after the goverment collapsed.

[ZephyrusX]

There are different types of governments, different branches and different activities involved in governments. I don't see why you would compare a student government that negotiates a universal bus pass with the city for its students to 'mafia-style' gangs. In securing that universal bus pass, they negotiate the terms and regulations under which the students are to use the passes. Why is this a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Anarchist

Thank you for replying to this thread , You have pointed out the need for clarity in my post. My point in this thread is to point out that government is no different from a mafia-style gang, in violating moral principles. I'm not advocating a massive mob-like protest destroying everything in sight. What i am doing is offering a different perspective on many of our beliefs of what society is.

On the point of Somalia ,check out the youtube video True News 18:Somalia
It offers a different perspective on before and after the goverment collapsed.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Anarchist

1. Non-Aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle states that it is morally wrong to initiate(start) force against another human being such as : murder, rape, assault, theft, threatening violence against the victim in order to achieve a goal, ect.

You may use force in self-defense against a person that violates the non-aggression principle.

That's all well and good on paper. But what would likely happen in real life? What do people do when they lose their loved ones or their relatives? They retaliate. Especially if they think they can get away with it. Violence begets violence and violence is fueled by the idea of:

Originally Posted by Anarchist

2.Property Rights

In Property Rights ,you own effects of your actions such as : houses ,cars, money,food,water,businesses, your life, ect.(Except other human beings of course). Basically you are 100% responsible for your life and the stuff you own.

Now the obvious question is, "Who is going uphold these fundamental moral principles?".

Your answer is your friends? Why should I trust that people will use sound judgement when armed with deadly force? Who's going to make laws regarding gun use, gun licensing and all that? We just sell any weapon to anyone who wants one? Nukes? Bombs?

Within a capitalist framework, inequality would likely increase, which would likely lead to increased violence.

I don't believe we can have anarchy that works with the concepts of property and possession firmly in place. Anarchy needs acceptance, sharing, the elimination of the concepts of class, and a deep change of mindset to work. Sadly I don't think all of that is likely to happen.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

There are different types of governments, different branches and different activities involved in governments. I don't see why you would compare a student government that negotiates a universal bus pass with the city for its students to 'mafia-style' gangs. In securing that universal bus pass, they negotiate the terms and regulations under which the students are to use the passes. Why is this a bad thing?

Im not against people negotiating among each other , i'm just against having a monopoly on force, which is why the word "government" can be a loaded term, it includes teachers, firemen, mailmen, etc. All benefit of these definitely benefit society, but a monopoly on force can cause "and has throughout history" millions
of innocent deaths, including many of my friends who died in Iraq.That's one of the reasons i became an anarchist.

But i appreciate your reply, and you raise some fair points.

[ZephyrusX]

By monopoly of force, are you referring to the military and police? Or are you referring more broadly to authority and the capacity to influence people even if it is against their will? Even if we have a society of highly conscious people who are dedicated towards 'win-win' scenarios, I just don't see answers to our problems that accommodate the wishes of all people and some mechanism of final authority has to be in place whether it is democracy or oligarchy or what have you.

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

By monopoly of force, are you referring to the military and police? Or are you referring more broadly to authority and the capacity to influence people even if it is against their will? Even if we have a society of highly conscious people who are dedicated towards 'win-win' scenarios, I just don't see answers to our problems that accommodate the wishes of all people and some mechanism of final authority has to be in place whether it is democracy or oligarchy or what have you.

By monopoly on force I'm mainly referring to the rulers using the military and police and not the police and military themselves. Like a monopoly in business, who has the control? CEO or employees? And i agree with your point that you can't accommodate all the people's wishes, which is why at least one group of people always object to government decisions. Human nature does not like to be told what to do but still wants to benefit without effort(for the most part). Anarchy in my opinion is a feasible solution to different preference that humans have.

Edit: For me as an anarchist , I'm perfectly ok with other people's opinions even if they endorse monoarchy, anarchy allows different opinions that are even against the idea itself, it's perfectly fine with anything people have to say.

[ZephyrusX]

How so? Can you give me an example?

I guess, in my mind, I see human societies as consisting of finite resources, which then requires some form of leadership on how those resources are going to be spent. Can everyone have their wishes accommodated in this case?

Originally Posted by Anarchist

Anarchy in my opinion is a feasible solution to different preference that humans have.

[taylor]

I was thinking this simple maxim the other day:

The ideal is to give maximum freedom and power to those people sufficiently spiritually evolved and to remove freedom and power from those who are not.

This is already what is done to an extent in governments by removing the freedom and power of those who harm others (criminals). However, politicians and business men are seldom paragons of spiritual or ethical development and yet they currently hold the most power, while those with more development are merely left outside of higher power structures. That's why society is often moving towards schemes inspired by greed and a lust for power rather than spirit, happiness, or virtue.

In anarchy you'd be giving blanket freedom and power to everyone as long as they didn't violate your two stated principles. That's basically laissez-faire capitalism without a rigid governmental structure to enforce the two rules. There are many downsides to capitalism which we are currently experiencing because most business endeavors come from lower ideals. The liberals want to restrain these exploitative machinations through legislation which may be necessary if it's an especially damaging scheme, and yet legislation is used by equally if not worse political power structures and the businesses themselves.

I seriously doubt there is an external solution. For any system to work, including anarchy, it would take people being better than they currently are, and that would take better spiritual technology.

Just thinking out loud.

[Donatas Kaulinis]

I don't understand why would anyone want to live in a society without some sort of government.

Questions to anarchist:
What do I have to do to get a place to live in anarchistic society? What would I need to do to start a business? What about a family who lives prosperously, but the majority of people in an anarchistic society decide to exploit them? What if the majority of such a society decides to do anything immoral? How would bureaucracy work?

There's not a single one time in recorded history when anarchy worked out. At least none that I know of.

[Apresto]

Anarchy is needed every once in a while but always in small portions - otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognize order and perfections without it's opposite - maybe in the same way if anarchy ruled the world, little perfections can bring the same joy as to nowadays anarchists. You just have to decide what side you are on and are alone there

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by taylor

I was thinking this simple maxim the other day:

The ideal is to give maximum freedom and power to those people sufficiently spiritually evolved and to remove freedom and power from those who are not.

That sounds an awful lot like Theocracy. Tends to suck. But, in a holy way...

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

That sounds an awful lot like Theocracy. Tends to suck. But, in a holy way...

Forgot "spiritual" is a loaded word.

[Swifthawk]

Originally Posted by Anarchist

1. Non-Aggression Principle

2.Property Rights

What is your argument for these being "fundamental moral principlies"? It would seem to me that in an anarchic society these fundamental principles would have no power or foundation behind them.

Property "rights"? This language seems strange in this sort of society. If there is no regulation and no law, then these "rights" are nothing more than wishes.

With a government present, laws and rights are possible through mutual agreement of those in the society.

Without a government or regulating entity, differing viewpoints will result in differing actions from person to person or group to group.

Just because there can be bad governments that take advantage of people does not mean that there cannot exist good governments which act in accordance with agreements with its people. It seems far-fetched to think that Anarchy is more moral because of fundamental moral principles that seem unfounded.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by taylor

I was thinking this simple maxim the other day:

The ideal is to give maximum freedom and power to those people sufficiently spiritually evolved and to remove freedom and power from those who are not.

What are you saying exactly? Put them in prison? Something similar? How would it help those people to remove their freedom and their power? If it hurts them instead, in the long run you'll get two classes of people. All I see as a result is an increase in violence and criminality.