The expasion of Government - Does it Promote World Peace?

Remove all ads!

How is anarchy not stable? Or at least, how is anarchy inheritly unstable? As I see it - anarchy would be stable because people would have an interest in making it so (working with the assumption that it's not 'anarcho-capitalism', which most anarchists seem to think isn't anarchy). There isn't really any reason to steal in a gift economy, for example - or in the other economical thingies which anarchists tend to put forward. Sure, people have an interest in making governments work too - it's just that they're totally powerless to actually do so generally. Sending the local council a letter and hoping that they respond is so much less effective than direct action/discussing it as a community then doing it.

There are historical examples of anarchism working as well, not 'going to shards overnight' - so there is a basis outside of theory to think it will work. (Admittedly most of these were fairly short lived through no fault of their own, so it's hard to tell whether they would have survived in the long run if other forces hadn't interfered). I strongly recommend reading a few chapters of George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia - it shows anarchy working.

As to whether it would promote world peace: I think so. If no one's interested in a war, then they won't go to war. There is no government to order people to go or to start one-sided propaganda campaigns. There would also be no capitalistic reason for such a war.

(*sigh* I've been avoiding posting in this thread so far. Guess all good things come to an end ... also, my thoughts on anarchism are recent and could very well change - I don't see them doing so, but still, don't hold this against me if they do )

 

@Aik: Anarchy works as long as all participants share an altruistic mindset. As soon as someone gets greedy, or someone else decides to feel persecuted. That's when anarchy breaks down. Heck, that's when EVERYTHING breaks down.

@Chev: You've given me the perfect opening to post something that crossed my mind this morning while packing lunches for the boys. You're right - most government should be local. But in this technological age, what exactly does "local" mean anymore? The internet has made many borders meaningless, especially in the area of commerce. Laws that were devised in era when plane travel wasn't possible, let alone common, haven't necessarily been adapted to the new modes of communication and transportation that are available today. And when people from all over the globe can chat together via IRC and interact in any number of other ways, whose laws should apply, should they be needed?

So what does "local" mean, practically?

 

I believe that less government is the best government -- the State should protect its citizens from danger and aid them, but it should not regulate their lives.

That said, I feel the need to address the issue of workplace sexual harassment. I think there's a HUGE difference between a guy asking a co-worker out and sexual harassment as envisioned by many here.

If she says no, he should just be a decent person and say "OK, maybe some other time" and leave it at that -- this exact same thing happened between me and a co-worker this semester.

It's when standard societal norms and mores do not stop the fellow, and he barrages her with contact, threatens her with lost job opportunities, and otherwise behaves like an idiot, then there should be laws protecting the victim. That sort of harassment or ignorant persistance is not "normal male behaviour".

 

@Rally: Yes, you have a valid point there. It's already a problem between countries, let alone small communities. I think most important laws should be the same for a state, or let's better call it a country. Whether it's a country-state like the whole US or Canada or a major province like Michigan or Alberta. Or a traditional country like France or Germany. In trade, I suppose we should follow the laws of the place where the contract is made or international agreements if they apply. But there's too much room for finding yourself on some exotic country's virtual territory and falling under its bizarre exotic laws without realising. We don't want that to happen. Perhaps international law is the future...

On the other hand, if communication is so easy, we don't really need so powerful mid-level political/social organisms, so maybe shifting some more burden on local communities wouldn't be so bad.

Still, too much reliance on technology wouldn't be good. Especially on the internet. We don't want the system to go down with ISPs or hackers electronically "signing" agreements. We don't want a Microsoft Lawmaker Suite, either.

 

Hmm, I'm thinking not. Mostly because being greedy isn't going to be too useful - what's the point of hording money in a non-capitalist society, especially one that might not even use money? What's the point of trying to gain power when, if people like the idea of anarchy, aren't going to support you, and if they actively dislike what you're doing - might just decide to stop you. It's not like an anarchic society would be defenceless from such threats - I would say quite the opposite, because there would be no governments to stop the people doing what's in their best interests (ie: stopping the power hungry person from taking over and creating such a situation where they can't).

Edit (quick waffle before I go): also, if you're thinking of exploitation ruining it - Where are people more likely to get exploited - a system that's set up supporting exploitation (capitalism), or one that's actively opposed to it? Sure, it could conceivably happen, but then it would no longer be anarchism, and I'm sure people who support anarchism would see about stopping that beforehand...

[ September 28, 2005, 08:31: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

Anarchy lacks one basic thing: policing. The only law compatible with anarchy is the law of the jungle and that's not how I want to have it.

 

Anarchy SUCKS!

Aikanaro,

Your post revolves around sophisms. What you call exploitation, I call moral rewarding. You say Capitalism is based upon exploitation - which is argueable - but I say a system in which people exploit - or take advantage if you so may wish - my superior thinking or produtive capacity is... well, exploitive. I do not mean this arrogantly. It also holds true to people superior to myself as well.
Having said that, there is this whole "people would see it coming"; "people would realise how mutually better anarchism is"
Not only that, but comments such as "because there would be no governments to stop the people doing what's in their best interests (ie: stopping the power hungry person from taking over and creating such a situation where they can't)." are highly subjective as well. What it is in people's best interests? I am sure I - among millions of people out there - am not too fond of this idea of "best interest" you are proposing.
It also sounds almost "criminal". How are we going to stop those "evil" power hungry guys from pursuing what is best for them?