Anarchy....Thoughts?

[Braioch]

Now before I begin, I'm going to start this off with a bit of acknowledgment. I am aware when it comes to politics, especially when it comes to the topic I'm about to bring in here, people can get quite heated, and as much they can get a little out of control. From what I have seen, a majority of the people on here are capable of being mature about this and able to keep their heads and have an adult conversation about this topic.

As such I will be keeping an eye on it nevertheless, if it gets out of control, I'm going to cut it off, lock it up, and be sorry I ever got it started. Plus no one wants a admin or mod on them, so please behave. I'm posting this as a means to debate a topic, because I find you can learn a lot from a debate. I may not able to completely counter a person's point in their statement or rebuttal, but that's all the better for me, because than it drives me to look it up and be able to catch it the next time around. So basically let's try to learn from each other and gain some new perspectives, so let's be adults ne?

With that out of the way, here goes....

Now by direct definition, I am an Anarcho-Communist. Yes I threw communism in there. Basically that means that I believe in the dissolution of formal governments that we have now, and believe that things should be run by the people, through the people, actually for the people. Leaders are unnecessary for a country or group of people to be able to operate smoothly.

I find that without a government that generally always ends up being corrupt, as history has generally shown. A people can be found to lead themselves without such things as we generally have now.

Now I could go into more, but I'll open the floor up a bit first before I go into other points that I have.

Now what say you all?

[Revolverman]

As someone who hates governments in general, I can see where Anarchists come from, but in almost every example in human history Anarchy has been temporary, and always ended with an even worse government then before. So I believe in a strictly controlled government, to exist basically to keep a worse one from taking power.

[Braioch]

Well this is mainly due to the fact that people believe that a new government should have to take it's place. People do not need a ruling body to keep them in place, or to keep order. If anything a strictly controlled government, much like our own, does not run as well as people like. It's corrupt, runs roughshod over civil liberties, and all in all creates dissent and problems within society.

I see it more as people dictating, together, not through a screwed up system that controls itself, what happens in the country. Where a place isn't run by the cream of the crop, but by those in the majority, those who have to work hard for their dollar, those how know what it means to struggle.

[Revolverman]

Well this is mainly due to the fact that people believe that a new government should have to take it's place.

The problem is there always going to be people who think that, and those who exploit it for their own power.

[mannik]

As someone who hates governments in general, I can see where Anarchists come from, but in almost every example in human history Anarchy has been temporary, and always ended with an even worse government then before. So I believe in a strictly controlled government, to exist basically to keep a worse one from taking power.

The Native Americans operated on a form of anarchy for many generations before the white man showed up and changed things. They can serve as proof that it is at least possible to live peacefully with the absence of organized government dictating the various aspects of life it now controls.

[Talia]

[

Basically that means that I believe in the dissolution of formal governments that we have now, and believe that things should be run by the people, through the people, actually for the people. Leaders are unnecessary for a country or group of people to be able to operate smoothly.

Now what say you all?

http://prosandcons.us/?cat=72 (an interesting site)

mmm.. In any form of governing body, political power would effectually rest with a small elite segment of society, whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers. I doubt it would be fair and balanced for all. With the population being what it is and all the different cultural backgrounds, let alone belief systems, one government for all just won't make sense. Some people are just as corrupt as the government. Therefore put a group of them together, "Wouldn't we have have the same thing, people looking after a few, but with there own interests at heart first?"

[Revolverman]

The Native Americans operated on a form of anarchy for many generations before the white man showed up and changed things. They can serve as proof that it is at least possible to live peacefully with the absence of organized government dictating the various aspects of life it now controls.

They also had tiny tribes that were almost just extend families, also that's not true, as the Iroquois confederacy was very much a "Government".

[Braioch]

Well those people are "corrupt" because of a government that supports and condones a system filled with greed and selfishness. How are people supposed to actually learn anything about cooperation if they are taught in everyday life to worry only about making more money, to beat the other guy by any means possible?

[RubySlippers]

Oddly I'm sympathetic as a Christian I can look to the first followers after the Jesus left in Acts and they did live communally and did good to others. It was really when they started organizational efforts to form a central church ,government, that the great experiment went to heck. Look at the Roman Catholic Church and its bloody history for that.

And during the period of Judges there were no Kings in Israel but judges that settled disputes and defended the people, God actually tried to disuade the Jewsih people from wanting Kings like pagans had. (Just quoting the Bible and Jewish sources not saying its accurate or anything just noting Christianity and Jewish roots could make a case to support some form of loose government or something akin to what was stated.)

On the other hand can we drop the systems now and go to that? I don't think it would work sadly.

[Braioch]

Hmmm, a good point that I ask myself constantly. At this point, the public is not ready for such a step, the system is too ingrained into their being for them to be fully ready to give it up. As it is, it would require people to start to see how little they need their government, and on the flip side how much their government needs them in all reality.

So no, people aren't ready at this point, but I certainly hope to find like minded people, or at least hope that some people see the truths in what I see. It's about slowly building up and preparing people, as much as having the personal belief as well.

[VainMe]

Hello all  :-) very interesting topic
I am an anarchist and i've done several protest.
isn't just the government that bother us we also fight against the capitalists (well.... they are supported by the govenment :) )

At this point, the public is not ready for such a step

You might be right but nowdays you already see chaos, cops killing 15 years old protesters, politics do whatever they want, you see murders and in most of the times the police doesn't solve anything or trow an innocent man into jail which is worst.
we might never be in anarchy, but at least we try to change some stuff, like we did in 1999 seattle :) that was a huge win...  :D.

once again i must say interesting topic

[Zakharra]

 I don't think you can have a modern civilization without a government and corporations. Anarchy would make it nearly impossible to build and maintain a modern high tech civilization. Nothing we have would be possible without a government to use taxes to build and maintain roads, services. A government is needed to set the price of money to pay for police/fire departments. They also pass laws that are enforced to a degree that keeps in check the selfish and destructive needs and desires of the human species.

   Corporations would need a for of currency in order to make and sell a product. Plus they need to be able to pay for  goods and raw materials from all over the world. Without a government to keep a corporation in check, they would eventually be a government since nothing would be able to stop them. Some corporations would  likely institute a form of debt indenturement/slavery if it suited their needs.

The same could be said of certain groups/religions too.

[goalt]

Government performs many important roles. Protection, infrastructure, regulation, laws. It is needed for these things.

[Zakharra]

Well those people are "corrupt" because of a government that supports and condones a system filled with greed and selfishness. How are people supposed to actually learn anything about cooperation if they are taught in everyday life to worry only about making more money, to beat the other guy by any means possible?

  The people would be corrupt anyways. Whether or not a government is there or not. Without a government structure in place, some of them would accumulate power anyways. By persuasion or by force.  Without a government, it would be entirely too easy for a modern day barbarian or strongman to take over an area. It takes organization to resist someone like that.

On one hand, the world population would be a lot lower so something like that might be possible. I don't think it's desirable though. Not at the cost of 30% or more of the world's population being killed. A functioning modern society depends on a high degree of organization to work smoothly.

[Inkidu]

Anarchy would never work. :\

[VainMe]

Government performs many important roles. Protection, infrastructure, regulation, laws. It is needed for these things.

Does it does it really? when was the last time the government protected you, when was the last time a police officer protected you?

i believe we would be better with anarchy  :-) ... well it's my opinion i respect yours to

[Braioch]

There may be people who would attempt to take advantage of it, but it's up to the people to take care of such a matter. Militia's still would exist, but be maintained by the people. The key to it is to make sure that the people are the maintainers of everything, not a single person or small group of people who deem themselves. Organization can still exist, what you think is that we need leaders when in reality people are quite capable of taking care of themselves.

Also corporations do nothing but offer overpriced items that cost not even half to make what they sell it for, pay off the government to influence the way laws and policies are made, and view themselves above the law. People are just as able to maintain places like that, without making a hierarchy filled with unfair wages and power management that crate an unjust system that screws the lesser man.

[Inkidu]

Does it does it really? when was the last time the government protected you, when was the last time a police officer protected you?

i believe we would be better with anarchy  :-) ... well it's my opinion i respect yours to

So you think you would live better in a world where I could walk up to you off the street kill you, go to your house and kill everyone you know and love for no reason and get away with it?

With government (now it doesn't always work I admit, but nothing's perfect) the fear of going to a prison is a great deterrent. So next time you think, "When was the last time a police officer ever helped me?" think, "Well he's there and hopefully putting some lawbreaker behind bars."

Anarchy doesn't work because it's not government it's the lack thereof.

Even what BlackSantaBraioch is suggesting some for of government it's called Paramilitarism. Someone would have to lead the militia.

[Braioch]

The people would lead it, I already stated I'm an anarcho-communist. To that the people would be in charge for what happened to them, and keeping order. I'm not saying that I want chaos, that's not what I stand by. Now there should be order, but that doesn't require a government, or a bunch of leaders to tell us what to do, or dictate our lives.

Anarchy means a lack of leaders, not chaos and THAT is what I believe in. Having a place where I don't have a group of people leeching money from myself and my loved ones, where people actually have a say in what happens.

[Vekseid]

I would be interested in seeing an anarchist come up with a water management scheme that relied on no one needing to follow any sort of orders that would not result in humanity's near extinction.

Edit: I don't want to seem too antagonistic, but you won't find a successful society that failed to manage its water, and the greatest empires - from China to Rome to America - possessed the finest water management capabilities of their time. How would an anarchist society react to something on the scale of the Dust Bowl?

[Braioch]

You're not being antagonistic, you're making me think about my stance, and that's what I want to do, so in all reality I should be thanking all of you really.

Certain things like power, water and management of various goods is as with the militia, it's led by the people. I'm not condoning mass chaos and lack of organization. As an anarchist I'm against Hierarchical authority, not all authority. It's about a collective organization with delegated tasks in which none have more precedence or authority over the other. It's all about working  together to achieve a place without having who's better or who's worth more, where a value of person isn't dictated by their status in life.

It's equality, and in that society the people who have knowledge of water management are no less important or more than the other tasks that people would have. Also, I don't think our government dealt with the dust bowl all tha well, people had to move from the dust bowl because the government had gotten themselves into such a rough spot with the wars. In all reality, no form of people will ever be really prepared for something outside of their realm of control, so I believe that points a bit moot, but that could just be me.

[Vekseid]

...when other governments fail to address mass desertification, people die by the millions. Half a million displaced citizens and a six-year complete turnaround is 'not at all well'? Oi. The thing is, farmers needed incentives to make the changes needed - changes that worked. If left to their own devices, the Great American Desert would become a real desert and something we might still be fighting today.

It's not a moot point. You say 'led by the people' - what does that mean, exactly? Does that mean everyone votes on every possible issue? Does it mean that the people assigned to regulate and manage water and water-related activities have the same say in water distribution as the people who massively outnumber them?

Or are they voted into office or appointed by someone who is?

And none of this addresses pathological personalities at all.

[Serephino]

Basic human nature would make Anarchy impossible.  People are greedy.  Look at the Capitalist mess we are in.  This happened because corperations were pretty much left to themselves to do whatever they wanted.  Well, what they wanted to do was get rich.  Elected Government officials can be bought because of human greed.

So let's say we do have a system run by the people.  And let's say everyone votes on everything.  Well, what if I have a neighbor that wanted the vote to go a certain way.  What's to stop him from coming to me and buying my vote?  Maybe he's in charge of food distribution and we make a deal that I get my pick of stuff first if I do what he wants?  Naturally that would be very appealing to me.  So how would that be different than what we have now?

All throughout history there have always been a select few opportunistic people that do whatever they feel they have to to gain power and influence.  That's how Monarchies started.  You'd have one charismatic guy with an army.  The local lords would swear fealty to this guy and add their own resources.  So you'd have a network, or rather a kingdom, that was controlled by one person with all the resources because he promised a bunch of guys leadership and protection. 

There are two types of humans; leaders and followers.  The majority of us are followers.  Basically, no matter what you do, no matter how you set things up, there are going to be greedy individuals that will figure out a way to work the system for their own benefit. 

Hell, you've got people drowning in credit card debt so they can have the nice houses and pretty toys like their neighbors.  We all want shiny pretty things.  We're all judged by what we have.  The world is already full of dishonesty.  Right now under the current government it's illegal for someone to pretend to be me and steal all my money.  They do it anyway... but that's beside the point. 

So what would your system do about corrupt people, because you know there will always be some around no matter what.

[Braioch]

As I stated earlier, we live in a society that from birth teaches us that we are meant to be like that. From the minute we have to start learning about to coexist with others, we are told to be nice, but yet at the same time we are shown to be ruthless, cut throat and extremely selfish. People only act as they do because the capitalist system we live in creates an environment that pits neighbor versus neighbor, dictates who has more value, and what is worth more.

We live in a world where we are taught to struggle for every last penny just to blow it all on things that the cream of the crop have. We are shown that by any means possible, including screwing other people over, we should achieve to be the best.

It is in what our society teaches that people learn such behavior, we are not born like that.

[Serephino]

What about Puritans?  They really didn't have much of a government.  They lived under the laws of England, but that was an ocean away.  They were taught from birth to live a Godly life, and yet... the Witch Trials...  Need I say more?  Godly Christian people who had it drilled into their brains that greed was a one way ticket to hell selling out their neghbors for their land. 

I'm really tired now, but if I think of any more examples I'll get back to you.

[Braioch]

They were taught by people from a blind and superstitious standing from England. All of it originated from a country where Religion WAS the power, and had all of the say. Those born in the colonies were taught from those before them who had been taught those same things, it was a vicious cycle brought on by a religious government seeking to control the populace.

[Nico]

Personally, I do like what Albert Einstein said about Anarchy once:

"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions."

[Braioch]

Ahh Nic has joined ;)

Good to see you Nic

In any case I think the illusion is part of having a government as it is. That's kind of their thing as they like to hide all of the problems, scandals and illegal action while pretending all is well.

If that's not illusion, I don't know what is.

[Vekseid]

As I stated earlier, we live in a society that from birth teaches us that we are meant to be like that. From the minute we have to start learning about to coexist with others, we are told to be nice, but yet at the same time we are shown to be ruthless, cut throat and extremely selfish. People only act as they do because the capitalist system we live in creates an environment that pits neighbor versus neighbor, dictates who has more value, and what is worth more.

Most people are pretty altruistic. Society wouldn't work, otherwise.

We live in a world where we are taught to struggle for every last penny just to blow it all on things that the cream of the crop have. We are shown that by any means possible, including screwing other people over, we should achieve to be the best.

It is in what our society teaches that people learn such behavior, we are not born like that.

This environment only really exists when we are supporting nonproductive classes - the financial elite of our society are no longer the productive elite. It's a temporary phenomenon, and only exists because we haven't adapted to the gross excess that modern society provides.

And you still haven't described what 'led by the people' means.

[Remiel]

This discussion reminds me of something Winston Churchill once said:

Democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind, except for all of the other ones that have been tried.

This discussion is probably more likely a discussion about philosophy than it is about civics.   With all due respect, Veks, I believe we are born selfish bastards (and if you doubt this, just watch a group of pre-school-age children interact) who learn, as we grow older, that we personally stand to benefit more if we respect the rule of Law than if we don't.   And therein lies the challenge to all civilised societies: how do we fashion our government so that the potential benefit from abusing one's position of power is less than the potential loss of property or freedom if one is caught doing so?  In the past, the only possible risk to a leader's life or treasure was of being weaker than one's rivals, and that was called Tyranny.    This transformed, over time, into the notion of Monarchy, or Divine Right--after all, a king must have a God-given mandate, or he wouldn't be king, right?  The presumption was that if the king wasn't acting in the best interests of his country, God would see fit to remove him from the throne.

As Churchill said, a representative democracy certainly isn't without its flaws--but I believe it's the best system we've currently got.  In what other system of government can you get a peaceful and orderly transition of power every x years? 

As for anarchy, I don't believe it will ever produce any kind of utopia.  Any situation without an established rule of law, without common consent, without a system of checks and balances, will inevitably deteriorate into tyranny.  After all, we've seen it before.  The French Revolution gave us Robespierre and Napoleon; the Russian Revolution gave us Stalin.

[Zakharra]

 *nods* There's also the problem that a modern civilization requires a organized system of governments. To allow companies and corporations to trade freely so raw materials, good and services are avalible. Without some large scale for of governance, the modern world would break down and we'd be castg back to about the 1800-1900's level of technology.

[Oniya]

Like most systems of government, anarchy only works well on the small scale with a group of people that want to make it work.

[Jude]

You need to have a government to enforce the social contract; the honor system obviously does not work.

As for the imperfections of modern society, I don't know if it's so much of a problem of the type of government we employ as it is the underlying society upon which the government is built.  Republics don't have a whole lot pitfalls other than the fact that they rely on the citizens to make the decisions.  And when such a large percentage of voters seem incapable of critical thought and are remarkably ignorant on many important subjects , the Democracy doesn't function well.

[Inkidu]

The people control the army. Well the closest there was Rome, and eventually one guy said screw you all I'm going across the Rubicon! A world where the people rule is all fine and well on paper, but people are too different. If you divided all wealth in the world up (assuming you could do it) evenly. Every pretty rock, every bullet, every greenback, every chicken, and give it out. It would be back where it is today in less than twenty years.

Why? Some people are spenders, some are savers, some are hoarders, some cheat, some lie, some steal. The same thing with government. You'll have someone who wants to be top dog, someone who wants to take the top-dog position.

I also like that world you use, Anarcho-Communist. It's very oxymoronic. A communist can't believe in anarchy, and an anarchist can't believe in communism. So how does that work? I'm not being glib I'm actually very curious.

Smart money is that if I could make the world into an anarchy in a decade you would have a democracy, a dictatorship, a commune, a republic, and another Holy Roman Empire. (Gosh I'm a sucker for that one, title alone.)
Simply because your average person craves some form of familiarity and you can't have that otherwise.

[consortium11]

I also like that world you use, Anarcho-Communist. It's very oxymoronic. A communist can't believe in anarchy, and an anarchist can't believe in communism. So how does that work? I'm not being glib I'm actually very curious.

Peter Kropotkin would be surprised to hear that his works are oxymoronic... as would the anarchists who ran Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War... probably still the most effective example of anarcho-communism in the real world.

The end point of Communism is a society without the state and the common ownership of the means of production… anarcho-communism advocates the exact same position. The only real difference is their means of getting there: communism looks to a dictatorship of the proletariat to give the revolution the momentum and structure it needs to continue where as anarcho-communism, hating the state as it does, believes such a step is a betrayal of the ideas and moreover that if you give even the most ardent revolutionary absolute power he would become a tyrant within years.

Anarcho-communism is one of the main branches of anarchist theory and has a pretty large amount of literary strength behind it. If anything it’s one of the most theologically sound of the anarchist subdivisions… certainly more than the recently popular anarcho-capitalist doctrine.

[Zakharra]

 Unfortunately it doesn't work well with large groups. Past a certain point, organization is required. Unless you can  make everything you need at a local or state level.

[consortium11]

Anarchy means a lack of leaders, not chaos and THAT is what I believe in. Having a place where I don't have a group of people leeching money from myself and my loved ones, where people actually have a say in what happens.

While I think you step back from this position later it's worth pointing out that Anarchy in no way means the lack of leaders. It means the lack of the state... which are two very different propositions. The Anarchist movement has long been characterised by a series of empassioned and charismatic leaders; Buenaventura Durruti, Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman and countless others.

I have a soft spot for Anarchism... and a similar soft spot for communism (which may come as a surprise to those who have been following my posts in this forum). That said the soft spot is entirely ased on their utopian qualities... I don't believe either works in a practical context. Anarcho-communism has always relied on the idea that after the fall of the state society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour as they recognized the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid. I don't think they would. I think it's a far too optimistic view of human nature; in contrast where the state has collapsed (and there haven't been large scale movements immediately stepping into the void) the movement has been far more towards Anarcho-Capitalism than the collectivist disciplines of Anarchy. I'm also pretty critical of most Anarcho-Communists attempts to preserve some level of private property... it seems they're trapped etween a rock and a hard place and aren't sure how to logically get out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the state is a necessary evil... an evil yes... but a necessary one...

[Revolverman]

Unfortunately it doesn't work well with large groups. Past a certain point, organization is required. Unless you can  make everything you need at a local or state level.

I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

[consortium11]

I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

There's a whole school of political philosophy ased around that principle: the catchingly titled "Minarchism"

[Revolverman]

There's a whole school of political philosophy ased around that principle: the catchingly titled "Minarchism"

Seems logical to me.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have little love for anarchy as it seems all too ready to have the rules cast aside without thought for what would happen.  There is far too much idealism in the notion without consideration for the pain it would cause people.  While government is abused and continues to abuse, anarchy promises nothing but more brutal and short lived abuse.  I have entertained arguments from anarchists and have yet to truly see a practical application of the theories.  There has been, to my knowledge anyway, no lasting movement by anarchism and no current society that lives by those tenets (at least one that does not exist in the context of a larger government).

[Revolverman]

There has been, to my knowledge anyway, no lasting movement by anarchism and no current society that lives by those tenets (at least one that does not exist in the context of a larger government).

the closest example I can think of is Somalia, and we all know what it's like there.

[Braioch]

I think the answer to a mass scale of the ideal as well as the answer to Veks, "led by the people" question is direct democracy. Meaning and yes, direct democracy you'd have administration, made up of ordinary people (who would be educated in their role as administrators.) Administration is not the same as government for the record.
As in, everyone who is affected directly by an issue will vote on it, and then, if their decision is part of a larger body, they elect a delegate and send them to a congress with the group's decision, and then the delegates all vote and the delegates would be able to be instantly recalled if they didn't carry out their group's wishes. (they'd have little reason to disobey their mandate, however, since they would always come from the community that they were representing)

Led by people, for the people, not this crap that they do now >.>

I have little love for anarchy as it seems all too ready to have the rules cast aside without thought for what would happen.

It throws out old and poisonous rules for the sake of new ones that actually give the people actual say. It's not about throwing out the rule book and saying "screw it, rape, pillage and massacre to your heart's desire, do what you will everyone!" There is a system in place for it all, as I have been explaining.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sounds like you're drawing up similiar to the Articles of Confederation, which didn't work either.  If there is a system in place, that means there are laws in place.  If there are laws in place then those laws require enforcement because law without enforcement is a waste of paper.  Same issues as what is being complained about.

[Braioch]

The enforcement comes from people placed and trained into that situation that uphold laws decided by these committees. It's a fair system in which the people get a say, it doesn't require a the system we have now in order to make it work.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So if the rules come from a committee than they must be fair and just.  Because we all know that the majority always pass what is best for everyone.  Thereby the laws being enforced by people properly placed to do so will be enforced justly and fairly.  Hence all people will be happy.

Four sentences and already I’m seeing a lot of =/= signs here.

[consortium11]

I think the answer to a mass scale of the ideal as well as the answer to Veks, "led by the people" question is direct democracy. Meaning and yes, direct democracy you'd have administration, made up of ordinary people

Who pays for this administration?

(who would be educated in their role as administrators.) Administration is not the same as government for the record.

Who pays for their education? Who educates them? And if we have a seperate class of administrators who are educated and paid to implement the decisions of the whole, doesn't that almost implicitely mean they're no longer "of the people"? Don't they become a political elite?

As in, everyone who is affected directly by an issue will vote on it, and then, if their decision is part of a larger body, they elect a delegate and send them to a congress with the group's decision, and then the delegates all vote and the delegates would be able to be instantly recalled if they didn't carry out their group's wishes.

What constitutes directy affected?

What constitutes a larger body? A town? A county? A country? A continant? What's the scale?

What happens if the decision of my delegate is out-voted? Why can't I simply ignore the decision?

What happens if I disagree with the decision made by my community? What happens if I ignore it?

Are there any limits or checks and balances on what can be voted in or out of existence?

(they'd have little reason to disobey their mandate, however, since they would always come from the community that they were representing)

People within a community don't vehmently disagree?

Led by people, for the people, not this crap that they do now >.>

It throws out old and poisonous rules for the sake of new ones that actually give the people actual say. It's not about throwing out the rule book and saying "screw it, rape, pillage and massacre to your heart's desire, do what you will everyone!" There is a system in place for it all, as I have been explaining.

Who enforces the rules that are decided? Who pays for those who create and enforce the rules? Does private property exist? Who sets this system up? And for example, what really differentiates this system from the Swiss setup... which includes direct democracy?

The enforcement comes from people placed and trained into that situation that uphold laws decided by these committees. It's a fair system in which the people get a say, it doesn't require a the system we have now in order to make it work.

Who trains these enforcers? Who places them?

And I struggle to see how this consitutes Anarchy in any way, shape or form... or even communism. While you avoid using the word "state" what you have is comittee's who decide laws (which appear to e decided y a simple majority) and a group who uses coerceon to enforce those laws. What makes this system different to a more directly democratic version of the existing system?

I'd also actually question if this system is truly direct democracy... due to the way the delegate system you advocate is set up it could well e that the popular vote would lose... and even if it doesn't if means that supporters who have 49% of the popular vote in a certain area have no representation at the top level...

[Braioch]

*holds head*

With so much of this I feel that it seems self-explanatory or at least included with what I was saying before and it feels like I'm going in circles with all of this.

That aside some very good points have been put forth, hopefully I've been able to answer them well enough. This is the part where I'm forced to bow out on the other hand because we've reached the limit of what I know, because as I stated earlier I'm still learning more as time goes on. I Consotorium presents a few good questions along with some frustrating circular questions, but it's the good questions above all that I fail at being able to answer.

So with that I admit my inability to neither counter that nor be able to give proper answers. Bear with me here, I'm a proud person, and admitting this sucks, I won't like, lol. So it seems I must retreat for now until I have enhanced my knowledge of this subject to be able to properly discuss it. It was a bit foolish and impulsive of me to be just rush into making this thread, that has become all too clear. Though my intent was too see where it was that I need to look more into this to be properly prepared as well as know my weak points.

You have made that perfectly clear >.<

Thank you again, because it definitely worked, I have plenty more to research to do before I attempt this again.

*slips quietly out of the room back to his lair*

[Zakharra]

 Your idea would only work if everyone in the committee was of the same mindset. If you get enough people who do not  see the world in the same way, disagreements and conflict will erupt sooner or later.

[Zakharra]

I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

Unfortunately that's not possible to do and keep a modern society. You have to have organized governments. To set monetary value, to have trade agreements, set laws, to have a military, infastructure (roads, bridges, railroads,dams, electrical grid, communication and the like). Without any of that, long range trading would die. Companies need the raw materials to make their products and in todays world, trade is truely a global thing now.   Unless you want to return to a pre industrial style of living.

[Serephino]

I think the answer to a mass scale of the ideal as well as the answer to Veks, "led by the people" question is direct democracy. Meaning and yes, direct democracy you'd have administration, made up of ordinary people (who would be educated in their role as administrators.) Administration is not the same as government for the record.
As in, everyone who is affected directly by an issue will vote on it, and then, if their decision is part of a larger body, they elect a delegate and send them to a congress with the group's decision, and then the delegates all vote and the delegates would be able to be instantly recalled if they didn't carry out their group's wishes. (they'd have little reason to disobey their mandate, however, since they would always come from the community that they were representing)

Led by people, for the people, not this crap that they do now >.>

It throws out old and poisonous rules for the sake of new ones that actually give the people actual say. It's not about throwing out the rule book and saying "screw it, rape, pillage and massacre to your heart's desire, do what you will everyone!" There is a system in place for it all, as I have been explaining.

That sounds quite a bit like what we've got in place now. The only difference I see is the immediate recall, though that's possible with the current system too.  Congressman are supposed to represent their constituents' interests and wishes.  They just don't.  A big part of the problem is no one wants to be bothered.  I don't see that ever changing either. 

Like I said, we humans, like most social animals, like to follow a hierarchy.  Most people don't want to think too much.  Ignorance is bliss.  Nobody wants to get involved.   

[Revolverman]

Unfortunately that's not possible to do and keep a modern society. You have to have organized governments. To set monetary value, to have trade agreements, set laws, to have a military, infastructure (roads, bridges, railroads,dams, electrical grid, communication and the like). Without any of that, long range trading would die. Companies need the raw materials to make their products and in todays world, trade is truely a global thing now.   Unless you want to return to a pre industrial style of living.

I don't propose going back to City States mind you, I'm just saying there are many things the Federal Government does that would be best handled by the State/Provence/Prefect/ or city.


Also, as a believer of commodity backed money, I don't think any government should be setting anything monetarily.

[Zakharra]

That sounds quite a bit like what we've got in place now. The only difference I see is the immediate recall, though that's possible with the current system too.  Congressman are supposed to represent their constituents' interests and wishes.  They just don't.  A big part of the problem is no one wants to be bothered.  I don't see that ever changing either. 

Like I said, we humans, like most social animals, like to follow a hierarchy.  Most people don't want to think too much.  Ignorance is bliss.  Nobody wants to get involved.   

Term limits would help with some of that. It would prevent a 'Congressional' class from forming since people wouldn't be able to spend 20-30-40-50 years or more in the same office. A lot of those people come from wealthy famlies and use their contacts to become more wealthy. Hardly any of them are really 'for the people'. 

Term limits would eventually push out the good peole, but they'd also push out the bad ones as well.

   

[Zakharra]

I don't propose going back to City States mind you, I'm just saying there are many things the Federal Government does that would be best handled by the State/Provence/Prefect/ or city.


Also, as a believer of commodity backed money, I don't think any government should be setting anything monetarily.

True. The states can do some things better than the federal government. The OP's idea doesn't work well at the state level though either. At the state level, there are many different cities that have their own interests.  You have urban and rural areas, the different geographical regions within the state. All of them competing for their share of power and influence.

Take the state of California for example. You have the northern part, the central and southern part. The northern part is rural, the central is a mix of  large urban areas and rural. The south the same. Most of the state lives in the cities. Sacramento, San Francisco, LA, San Diego and a few others holding  most of the population. How would the people in the cities know what's best for the people who live in the rural areas?

The system the OP is envisioning would fall apart in a situation like that since there is such a different view of opinion.

   Commodity backed money What exactly is that? The seller and buyer set the price? If so, in what currency? What would they use for money? They'd have to agree that some sort of money had a set value that isn't likely to change. Corporations would be terrible at setting the value of any money since they could use that power to set prices that benefit them. They could set prices for the consumer that would put you into a form of debt slavery.  Without a government to set the price of any money, it would quickly grow out of control.

[Revolverman]

   Commodity backed money What exactly is that? The seller and buyer set the price? If so, in what currency? What would they use for money? They'd have to agree that some sort of money had a set value that isn't likely to change. Corporations would be terrible at setting the value of any money since they could use that power to set prices that benefit them. They could set prices for the consumer that would put you into a form of debt slavery.  Without a government to set the price of any money, it would quickly grow out of control.

I mean money backed by things like Gold, Silver, or other valuable metals.

[Zakharra]

I mean money backed by things like Gold, Silver, or other valuable metals.

And who sets the value of that metal? When gold was the standard currency, governments set the standard to which they were worth. It would be a bad idea to have each state set it's own monetary value. Something like that has to be set at a Federal level. Not at the local level since any large corporation would be forced to deal with hundreds if not thousands of different currencies world wide.

[Revolverman]

And who sets the value of that metal? When gold was the standard currency, governments set the standard to which they were worth. It would be a bad idea to have each state set it's own monetary value. Something like that has to be set at a Federal level. Not at the local level since any large corporation would be forced to deal with hundreds if not thousands of different currencies world wide.

It wouldn't be set by ANY government, the price of the metals would be set by the market.

[Darkcide]

Anarchy doesn't work, and it can't work. Human nature won't allow it to. You have to have some form of order, and you can't just have everyone trying to instill order because not everyone has the same set values and morals. I believe in capitalism, just it hasn't been done right. Not everyone has the same advantages, and in a perfect society I feel that everyone would at least start on somewhat even grounding in relation to school. That if you didn't succeed it'd be on your head and yours alone. I grew up without having much, and I graduated from Detroit Public Schools so I know how uneven the circumstances between the haves and have nots are. However I cannot support communism, because I believe the money I make should belong to me and me alone. I work for a living, and I'm currently in college as a double major. I feel that if I have put in that much time and effort throughout my life that I am entitled for something to show for my work. So in my perfect society, everyone would have a mindset like this and contribute to society.

[Zakharra]

It wouldn't be set by ANY government, the price of the metals would be set by the market.

Set by the corporations then. You must trust them to do the right thing instread of looking out for the bottom line. Unless there is some form of control set by the governments you will have the corporations setting the prices to their wants and plans. That, my friend, is a very bad idea.

[Revolverman]

Gold isn't set by corporations. It's set by supply and demand, and the strength of currency, and as we can see, what we have now isn't working in the slightest.

[Oniya]

Barter

[Asuras]

Gold isn't set by corporations. It's set by supply and demand, and the strength of currency, and as we can see, what we have now isn't working in the slightest.

The gold standard was worse because governments could do very little to stimulate the economy when recessions hit. The Great Depression, for instance, occurred under the gold standard; recovery in most countries didn't begin until the gold standard was abandoned, as indicated here. The so-called "Long Depression" didn't end until people struck gold in Alaska and South Africa.

[Revolverman]

Governments should do nothing when depressions hit. When governments pump money into economies, all they do is boost inflation, and as such make it look like things are getting better, but in fact, people are losing real wealth because money is progressively getting more and more worthless.

[Serephino]

Anarchy doesn't work, and it can't work. Human nature won't allow it to. You have to have some form of order, and you can't just have everyone trying to instill order because not everyone has the same set values and morals. I believe in capitalism, just it hasn't been done right. Not everyone has the same advantages, and in a perfect society I feel that everyone would at least start on somewhat even grounding in relation to school. That if you didn't succeed it'd be on your head and yours alone. I grew up without having much, and I graduated from Detroit Public Schools so I know how uneven the circumstances between the haves and have nots are. However I cannot support communism, because I believe the money I make should belong to me and me alone. I work for a living, and I'm currently in college as a double major. I feel that if I have put in that much time and effort throughout my life that I am entitled for something to show for my work. So in my perfect society, everyone would have a mindset like this and contribute to society.

You make a very good point.  Not everyone has the same morals.  That's something that hasn't changed much throughout history either.  Communism does not work.  We've seen it time and time again. 

[Vekseid]

I split off responses to Revolverman's post and such to this thread : )

[VainMe]

So you think you would live better in a world where I could walk up to you off the street kill you, go to your house and kill everyone you know and love for no reason and get away with it?

With government (now it doesn't always work I admit, but nothing's perfect) the fear of going to a prison is a great deterrent. So next time you think, "When was the last time a police officer ever helped me?" think, "Well he's there and hopefully putting some lawbreaker behind bars."

Anarchy doesn't work because it's not government it's the lack thereof.

Even what BlackSantaBraioch is suggesting some for of government it's called Paramilitarism. Someone would have to lead the militia.

If i walk on the street i can grab a gun shoot a guy no one is seeing and walk away, believe me no one would find me

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Social convention is wonderful for crime prevention.

[BCdan]

Here are my thoughts.  Anarchy is not a form of government or even a lack of government.  It is merely a state of government, often when one government is failing and being replaced by a new one.  Anarchy simply cannot stand naturally on its own for any extended period of time.

There are two forms of government.  Oligarchy and Republic.  Rule by the most powerful group of people or rule by law/constitution. Socialism, libertarianism and all those definitions are just variables on the two main forms of government. 

[RubySlippers]

Another option to look at anarchism in religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism