Topic: My doubts about anarchy - page 8. (Read 18191 times)

Anarchy couldn't work if all governments were to end now. Another government would certainly emerge. However, I think anarcho-capitalism is possible in any community where a large percentage of people (maybe 25%) understand the ideas behind anarcho-capitalism and the majority of other people are not totally hostile to the idea.

If all governments ended now, but 25% of people understood anarcho-capitalism, protection agencies would quickly spring up to defend the anarcho-capitalists against those trying to build a new government (as well as other criminals). Most other people will be seeking security. When they see that a government will not help them, they will also hire one of the existing protection agencies. At this point, governments will have a very hard time taking control again.

Anarcho-socialism would need a much higher percentage of supporters in a post-government situation. If they had the same 25%, I don't think they would be able to provide security for the rest. Furthermore, a large number of the moderates will refuse to give up their property. In anarcho-capitalism, the moderates don't have to give up anything; they voluntarily hire a protection agency.

Yeah my examples of utopias were not very good.  I lack imagination about those stuffs.

Anyway that was only part of my point.  Power does exist and therefore I have difficulty to imagine a society without it.

Truly, in the world there will always be at least one person who will be willing to take the power.  If nobody does, I will.

PS.  I hate hippies and in a hippie world I assure you I would build some guns and enslave them all.   

There is nothing Utopian about ending sickness, aging, hungers, and bad things in the world. No, it is you who are confused.

It is only by our irrationality and lack of knowledge that prevent us from preventing sickness, aging, hungers, and bad things in the world.

Think about it:

1. Aging is a biological process. That mean we can apply human reasoning to find out how to reverse and stop aging.

2. Hunger is a problem in the world because either:
 
  Our population is too large or that we have biological urges to breed too much. (not a problem)

  We are too inefficient about converting energy into fun. (problems with cows, mostly)

  Distribution of food are inequal (caused by more fundamental problems)

3. Sickness is a big problem space. There are many things we don't understand, but it doesn't mean we can't fix them. Sickness include aging, heart problems, diseases, etc.

They seem to be intractable problems right now, but in reality it simply means that we lack knowledge on how to solve them. Don't confuse extremely hard problem with utopian dreams.

I expressed my doubts about anarchy in the thread about riots in London.  I thought we might open a new thread about anarchy in general.  I'll start giving my opinion on the subject.

I seriously begin to doubt the concept of anarchy means anything anyway.  To me, anarchy is to politics what nihilism is to philosophy.  It's a paradoxical, contradictory concept.

If we consider anarchy to be the absence of central rules or coercion forces, then we have to admit that there is an inner paradox in such a concept:  how can you prevent rules or coercion, without using coercion or rules?

In a sentence:   "No rules" is still a rule.

Politics is about organisation of power.   But politics doesn't create power ex-nihilo.  Power does exist, because human action exist.  Weapons exist and humans tend to use them when they can.   Anarchist would like to see usage of force disappear from earth, but it is just as utopian as the disappearance of sickness, aging, humger and other bad things in the world.

Politics is about opinions about which usage of force can be accepted, and which usage can not.   And to clarify these, there is a set of rules which can be voted by the people or edicted by an autocrat.  Each individual can have his own set of rules, and if his set of rules is totally different from the rest of the society, this person usually becomes a criminal or any other kind of asocial.

Honnestly, sometimes I think I understand anarchy, and somtimes I'm not sure I understand it at all.  It's kind of disturbing.

So I think I can't declare myself as an anarchist.   And yet, I think there is no real rule about how power should be organised.  Power is not something that should be discussed, it's something that should be taken.  It belongs to whoever is capable of taking it.