Anarchy Thread

[Surge]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a forum for people to either ask questions about the Anarchist philosophy and or for serious debate to take place on the subject. Blindly asserting that it is simply stupid because you said so, will not be tolerated.

Here is an excerpt from Anarchism.net to get us started on what we’re talking about:

The movement, it is said, consists of chaos-seeking brutes who wish nothing but to destroy and cause suffering. The view of anarchism is in this sense often a Hobbesian state of nature rather than an attractive theory of social organization. That is however not what anarchism is about; actually, this image has nothing to do with anarchism (but it does sadly have to do with some people calling themselves anarchists).

The image of anarchism as chaos is simply utterly wrong. Contrary to this scurrilous portrait, anarchism is a peaceful tradition of thought with its roots in ancient philosophy. Anarchism as a philosophical ideal was advocated in Ancient Greece by the stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium, and anarchist tendencies are prominent in Taoism, a theory developed in Ancient China.

As a disclaimer: I’d be best described as either an individualist anarchist or Anarcho-Capitalist (Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard are the biggest influences on my thinking on this subject) and Anarchism is a political philosophy with a wide range of varying views. So if there is anyone who subrscribes to another variation and that wants to add their perspective or point of view (not to mention people who share my perspective), don’t hesitate to do so. And of course statists are more than welcome to ask questions and/or to debate the merits of the philosophy.

[phawkins1988]

How does the anarchist guarantee the provision of universal schooling?

[Alun_Aedicita]

phawkins, I think that depends on what form of anarchist answers the question. To me, it seems the easiest general format of an anarchist society would use an explicit social contract to deter coercion, which would seem to me to naturally require universal education; people have to be aware of the social contract. It would also require the entire population to have substantial mobility and freedom, as people would need to have reasonable options aside from the social contract.

Without these things, an anarchist society would be impossible imo, but that’s with my definition of anarchism. Given that an adequate education, the wealth required for freedom of mobility, and a coherent social contract that everyone would agree to are all lacking, I don’t think an anarchist society is possible at present.

But in theory, I’d say an anarchist society’s social contract would implement a mechanism by which the community could be aware of and support education for everyone. Today, the US largely does this with audits and tests; an anarcho-capitalist society would probably use similar methods, but there are a plethora of other avenues by which it could theoretically be accomplished.

Surge, do you have any comments on whether or not anarchy is reasonably accessible to society in the immediate future? If so, what do you think is missing from my thinking in my first two paragraphs?

[phawkins1988]

Hello Alun Aecidita,

My problem with that is that by establishing such a contract and the apparatus that would be necessitates by such a contract (this education system surely needs teachers, civil servants etc etc) the Stateless utopia of Anarchism quickly seems to develop into a de facto State anyway, in that it would have the same governmental structures. Which seems somewhat to dilute the concept of anarchism.

There’s something odd about people having to be forced to be universally educated in an anarchist system as well, in my book. It seems obvious that at least some people would not wish to be educated, and to compel them seems ot go against the whole message of anarchism.

That said, I’ve never really understood anarchism.

[yromemtnatsisrep]

Hey surge

welcome to the boards.

i started an anrchy thread earlier, so im glad to see its resurection.

anarchy is a really cool concept.

being a marxist, few better groiups than we have a better perception of what its like for a concept not being able to be utilized.

Anarchy would work really well…with animals.

the ability for abstract thought that we humans posses destroys any chance for anarchy to occur.

it is that ability for abstract thought that makes us lazy, greedy, ext.\

all the things that wouldnt allow “anarchy” to exist.

A power vacumm forms, and somebody is alwasy there to fills its place.

humans will always manipulate and take advantage of eachother.

Now, what i think is a great idea is anarcho-communism.

the idea that the state shouldnt exist and in its place volunteer asociations in a horizontal network.

but here comes the contradiction.

in anarcho-communism, each person is free to cotribute to general production suited to their needs.

this means everyone would have to be selfless. this goes against human nature.

it would take several generations for people to “forget” old life and realize that to function everyone needs to work to their ability and take only for need.

the argument is that any economic system based on “wage labor” and “private property” will require a coercive state apparatus to enforce property rights and to maintan the unequal economic relationships that will inevitably arise. because thats just human nature.

now what i do think can work is Eco-anarchism

eco anarchism is the idea that people can live peacefully in small “eco-villages” sorta like swish family robinson.

there was actually a famouse eco-anarchism article or book i forget

called the “wirst mistake i nthe history o the human race”

stating that the neolithic revolution destroyed any chance of Anarchy every happening, and that the hunter gather societies were better off. however i disagree.

just my opinion

[Surge]

@Alun Aedicita

phawkins, I think that depends on what form of anarchist answers the question. To me, it seems the easiest general format of an anarchist society would use an explicit social contract to deter coercion, which would seem to me to naturally require universal education; people have to be aware of the social contract. It would also require the entire population to have substantial mobility and freedom, as people would need to have reasonable options aside from the social contract.

Without these things, an anarchist society would be impossible imo, but that’s with my definition of anarchism. Given that an adequate education, the wealth required for freedom of mobility, and a coherent social contract that everyone would agree to are all lacking, I don’t think an anarchist society is possible at present.

But in theory, I’d say an anarchist society’s social contract would implement a mechanism by which the community could be aware of and support education for everyone. Today, the US largely does this with audits and tests; an anarcho-capitalist society would probably use similar methods, but there are a plethora of other avenues by which it could theoretically be accomplished.

Surge, do you have any comments on whether or not anarchy is reasonably accessible to society in the immediate future? If so, what do you think is missing from my thinking in my first two paragraphs?

There wouldn’t be universal schooling or a social contract in a stateless society. A social contract is a government made creation to justify its existence. It’s an absurdity and legal fiction. In an anarchist society there would be real contracts between individuals.

As far as education goes there wouldn’t be the havens for pedophiles known as public schools, so the standarized tests that lots of schools test to or help students cheat on probably wouldn’t exist either. There would likely be a variety of public schools and more homeschooling—education of the children would be up to the parents instead of bureaucrats.

[Alun_Aedicita]

@Surge

There wouldn’t be universal schooling or a social contract in a stateless society. A social contract is a government made creation to justify its existence. It’s an absurdity and legal fiction. In an anarchist society there would be real contracts between individuals.

Social contract theory applied to, for example, the United States would say that it’s an implicit contract. This is a bit ambiguous, because it is basically saying “by not leaving our land, you agree to our rules” even though a ridiculously small part of our population actually understands the legal system rigorously (lawyers), and even less agree on what it means. In other words, we “agree” to a contract that we don’t understand by being born and not leaving. However, a social contract only necessitates an agreement among a group of individuals; if done explicitly there is no coercion.

@phawkins1988

My problem with that is that by establishing such a contract and the apparatus that would be necessitates by such a contract (this education system surely needs teachers, civil servants etc etc) the Stateless utopia of Anarchism quickly seems to develop into a de facto State anyway, in that it would have the same governmental structures. Which seems somewhat to dilute the concept of anarchism.

The problem with a state is that it holds authority. If a social contract were done correctly, there would be no such authority, it would in fact be given by each individual in the community. Thus, people cannot be coerced, as they agree to the rules they’ll abide by.

@phawkins1988

There’s something odd about people having to be forced to be universally educated in an anarchist system as well, in my book. It seems obvious that at least some people would not wish to be educated, and to compel them seems ot go against the whole message of anarchism.

Education would be a requirement for this social contract model I’m talking about. I should probably emphasize that there are many, many forms of anarchism, and that I’m not an authority on the subject. But there wouldn’t be punishment, per se, for refusing education, the individual would just not be a part of the society; without being sufficiently educated, they can’t verily agree to the contract.

[Surge]

@Alun Aedicita

@Surge

There wouldn’t be universal schooling or a social contract in a stateless society. A social contract is a government made creation to justify its existence. It’s an absurdity and legal fiction. In an anarchist society there would be real contracts between individuals.

Social contract theory applied to, for example, the United States would say that it’s an implicit contract. This is a bit ambiguous, because it is basically saying “by not leaving our land, you agree to our rules” even though a ridiculously small part of our population actually understands the legal system rigorously (lawyers), and even less agree on what it means. In other words, we “agree” to a contract that we don’t understand by being born and not leaving. However, a social contract only necessitates an agreement among a group of individuals; if done explicitly there is no coercion.

@phawkins1988

My problem with that is that by establishing such a contract and the apparatus that would be necessitates by such a contract (this education system surely needs teachers, civil servants etc etc) the Stateless utopia of Anarchism quickly seems to develop into a de facto State anyway, in that it would have the same governmental structures. Which seems somewhat to dilute the concept of anarchism.

The problem with a state is that it holds authority. If a social contract were done correctly, there would be no such authority, it would in fact be given by each individual in the community. Thus, people cannot be coerced, as they agree to the rules they’ll abide by.

@phawkins1988

There’s something odd about people having to be forced to be universally educated in an anarchist system as well, in my book. It seems obvious that at least some people would not wish to be educated, and to compel them seems ot go against the whole message of anarchism.

Education would be a requirement for this social contract model I’m talking about. I should probably emphasize that there are many, many forms of anarchism, and that I’m not an authority on the subject. But there wouldn’t be punishment, per se, for refusing education, the individual would just not be a part of the society; without being sufficiently educated, they can’t verily agree to the contract.

It’s not ambigious, it’s nonsense and doesn’t even met the legal definition of a contract.

Legitimate contracts between individuals wouldn’t be a “social contract,” they’d be real contracts.

[Alun_Aedicita]

Call them what you want. By saying implicit social contracts were ambiguous, I was agreeing with you; I was just giving the reason why I don’t think they are credible contracts. I’m talking about a very different form of social contract, in that I think it serves just as a conventional contract, except potentially among more individuals, by being explicit.