Anarchism, split form the (De)Motivator thread. :)

[Tallpine]

A lot of Indian women would probably disagree with that.   

Women in our culture did not have the rights back then that they have today.

No overseas wars?  You have never heard of Indian tribes fighting each other? 

Specifically, why I said "overseas."  There were a lot of intertribal conflicts, but nowhere near the scale of European wars, for example.  Why are big wars okay but little wars bad...?

A number of tribes had central government also.  It wasn't just one villiage that defeated Custer.

The Little Big Horn was the one instance of the western tribes working together to fight the whites.  In their tribal/clan mentality, they could not even conceive of the consolidation of the US govt.  After the LBH, they pretty much thought they had won and the issue was settled once and for all.  Likewise, when the Nez Perce crossed from Idaho into Montana, they assumed that they would be at peace with these "Blue Coats" as they always had been before.  Their mistake was shown at Big Hole.

The Indians did not live in anarchy.  They had govt.  It wasn't the same as our govt, but it certainly wasn't anarchy.

Ok, which is it...?  They had "government" but since they lived in "anarchy" they didn't have patents, contract law, etc ...?
(I'm combining issues from several posters here)

[MechAg94]

Tallpine, Please define Anarchy for us.  You are apparently working with a definition that is unlike what anyone else is using. 

[MechAg94]

Women in our culture did not have the rights back then that they have today.

Women still didn't do all the farm work, etc as well.  That comment was mainly in reference to your mention of who had a "monopoly of power".  Not important to the discussion. 

Specifically, why I said "overseas."  There were a lot of intertribal conflicts, but nowhere near the scale of European wars, for example.  Why are big wars okay but little wars bad...?

Limiting the discussion to overseas wars for a people who weren't capable of going overseas seems like screwed up logic to me.  Inter-tribal conflicts were their version of an overseas war with another country.  They were big wars to the Indians, not little at all.  Also, you can say what you want, but the Sioux nation was huge.  It was much bigger than most countries and empires ever were in Europe. 

The Little Big Horn was the one instance of the western tribes working together to fight the whites.  In their tribal/clan mentality, they could not even conceive of the consolidation of the US govt.  After the LBH, they pretty much thought they had won and the issue was settled once and for all.  Likewise, when the Nez Perce crossed from Idaho into Montana, they assumed that they would be at peace with these "Blue Coats" as they always had been before.  Their mistake was shown at Big Hole.

You are the one who said they had no central govt, not me.  Lots of tribes had central govts of one sort or another.  Just because they weren't as big as the United States of America doesn't invalidate the comparison.  The fact that the Indians did not understand total war with logistics and supply doesn't change it either. 

Ok, which is it...?  They had "government" but since they lived in "anarchy" they didn't have patents, contract law, etc ...?
(I'm combining issues from several posters here)

As I said before, Define Anarchy for us then.  Anarchy is not limited govt or libertarian govt.  Just because the systems set up by that government are not the same as the systems of our government doesn't change what it is. 

[Tallpine]

"Anarchy" would be no government, literally "without a ruler"

Now, define "government" 


(my definition would be "an entity claiming and enforcing a monopoly on the use of force over a specified territory")

[wooderson]

'Anarchism' (which is not the same as colloquial anarchy) is difficult to define because it encompasses a wide range of concepts. If, like me, you ignore anarcho-capitalism (left-libertarians existed first, so they get dibs), broadly speaking it's a resistance to hierarchy and unnecessary or unearned authority. A democratic, localized community government is not incompatible with most strains of anarchism.

[MechAg94]

These agree with my working definition of anarchy.  It sounds to me like you consider limited local forms of government to still be anarchy.  I wouldn't consider it that way.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anarchy

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/anarchy

  an·ar·chy    audio  (nr-k)  KEY 

NOUN:
pl. an·ar·chies

   1. Absence of any form of political authority.
   2. Political disorder and confusion.
   3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[wooderson]

Those are definitions of 'anarchy' which is rather different from 'anarchism' as a political concept.

"1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups" - the first part is an overstatement, as the latter half ("free association of individuals and groups") may well be definable as a de facto local 'government.'

[Tallpine]

Look at it another way ...

If government (the state) is the "solution", then what are the "problems" ?

Granted there are a number of problems to which government is purported to be the solution.  But a rational discussion might include enumerating those problems and discussing various possible solutions, of which government might only be one.


Rabbi: might you be willing to enlighten us on the "pre-kings" era of the children of Israel?  I know they had "judges" but I'm not sure that they had a formal "state" at that time.  (sounds somewhat like the Brethonic system of Ireland)  I do know that the prophet Samuel warned them about taking on a king like other nations, who would enslave them with taxes and take their sons to fight wars.  It's been a while since I read that stuff.

[The Rabbi]

They had a tribal system with heads of tribes.  They had a Sanhedrin that dispensed justice and rulings, with a system of lesser courts and official "police".  Can be found about 1/3 of the way through Deuteronomy.

[Perd Hapley]

(my definition [of govt.] would be "an entity claiming and enforcing a monopoly on the use of force over a specified territory")

Why would you say that? 

[Tallpine]

Why would you say that?

Because it is a correct - if not a dictionary - description.


Anyone else using force - except in extremely limited self defense, and sometimes not even then - is a "criminal."  (see also, "vigilante")

[zahc]

Anyone else using force - except in extremely limited self defense, and sometimes not even then - is a "criminal."

I don't think you need the qualifier at all. Basically you can say anyone else using force not delegated to them by the state is a "criminal". You might be delegated authority to use force in self defense, but only because the state says you do. So really, the state is still holding an absolute monopoly of force.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure how you can say that the state holds any kind of monopoly on force, when people in the U.S. own and carry their own guns, legally, and use them, legally, to kill and wound.  Even in most other countries, people are allowed to defend themselves with other brands of lethal or less-lethal force. 

[Tallpine]

Well, let's see - try collecting a bad debt or evicting someone from your house by force    The best you can do is get a court judgement and then maybe the state employed and sanctioned "enforcers" will do it for you.

Or in most places (Texas reportedly being an exception) try using deadly force to defend your property.

Or try telling the local LE agency that you don't want their services anymore and wish to hire your own security 

[Perd Hapley]

Tallpine, what about the examples I gave earlier?  Aren't these cases where private citizens use force of their own initiative, often without any prior license or let from government?

You're telling me I can't throw someone out of my own house, by force?  That would be illegal?  Where?  If there's just one place with a govt. that allows it, then your definition is wrong.  There are plenty of places and situations where you can legally hire security personnel and/or use deadly force to defend your property.  Even if there were not, that would not mean it is theoretically inconsistent with having a government. 

The one way I could see government having a monopoly on force would be that the state sits in judgment over who used force and how.  But they do that with a lot of other things, too.  I think if I were to come up with an off-the-cuff definition of government, I would go with something like, "An entity exercising sovereign earthly authority over a territory" or similar.  Force would be a side-issue. 

[wooderson]

The 'monopoly of force' is one of Max Weber's criteria for defining a viable state. It isn't a reference to being able to defend oneself or even property - as with most theory, trying to interpret a broad heading with narrow exceptions will get you nowhere.

 It refers to the ability to enforce laws and will on a broader scale. The United States is a viable state because the government has reserved for itself the threat of force - being able to jail or execute 'lawbreakers,' able to exert itself militarily, etc.. We don't have extra-governmental militias (considered legitimate) or vigilante 'justice.' Weber would likely argue that because self-defense is explicitly accounted for in most locales, the use of force to defend family has been sanctioned by the state.

Iraq, despite the pretenses of a government, is not a state because it does not have a monopoly on the ability to use violence to achieve its ends. The government competes with an external invader (or, arguably, two groups of invaders), militias, tribal law, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks, Wooderson. 

[Firethorn]

The 'monopoly of force' is one of Max Weber's criteria for defining a viable state. It isn't a reference to being able to defend oneself or even property - as with most theory, trying to interpret a broad heading with narrow exceptions will get you nowhere.

Perhaps a better description would be to have a monopoly on the offensive use of force.

A citizen killing an armed burglar in his house is one thing.  A movie star hiring somebody to track down and kill a threatening stalker is another.

Remember, there are states where self defense is essentially illegal.  The USA is being nice.

[Tallpine]

The state claims and enforces a monopoly of force within it's boundaries, even though it might allow narrow exemptions for use of force by common citizens (ie, self defense).  Those are defined by statutes as an affirmative defense ("yes, I did it but ...") to crimes of assault, murder, and kidnapping (detention/arrest).  Mess up slightly in your exercise of force and you will find yourself an object of govt force and enjoying free room and board.

Anyway, it's good to start discussing definitions.  Your "An entity exercising sovereign earthly authority over a territory" seems rather vague to me (what kinds of authority?) though most folks would just nod and say that sounds about right.

[freakazoid]

They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
If you want to go back to the standard of living of 16th century Indians, go right ahead.  We'll write.

Have you ever heard of Richard Proenneke? I could live quite comfortably with a simple life.

OK!
A believer in anarchy who can't spell and uses specious reasoning.

What?

Sit back and enjoy the recoil.

lol, I'm used to it. Especially form the THR forums , when I could post there .


edit - I forgot to add this. In response to the talk about the Bible.

1 Samuels 8

1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

 4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."

 6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
      Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."

Matthew 6

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Leviticus 25

35 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Acts 4

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

^^ Those are communist/anarchist ideas.

[Perd Hapley]

Sir, there is nothing even remotely anarchist in those passages. 

The passage from Samuel concerned the form of government; it was not a call to anarchy.  The Jews were already living in a strict theocracy.  The passage from Acts just talks about charity and sharing, which happens under lots of governmental systems.  The other passages are just totally unrelated to the subject.
 

[Tallpine]

The passage from Samuel concerned the form of government; it was not a call to anarchy.  The Jews were already living in a strict theocracy.

The Hebrews had a cultural system (religious in this instance) that guided their society.  And a set of judges (dispute resolution organization).  Maybe not quite "anarchy" but certainly a mild system that might be termed a stateless society (of course they had no internet, either  ).  And they rejected that for a centralized state with a monarch, and the resulting taxes and enslavement.

The whole point being looking for examples of successful societies without a formal government.

[Stand_watie]

If I can venture this comment, from a non-Hebrew religious background, regarding the teaching of the Old Testament about Hebrews under authority of Judges vs Hebrews under authority of Kings, was that I was taught in sunday-school that the G-d intended model was Judgeship rather than Kingship.

And some of us believe that those things in the sky really were put there by an Omnipotent being.  You want to believe in a nothing that exploded, that's your privilege...

+1

[Perd Hapley]

OK, so far we've got an anarchist system where you get executed for blasphemy or working on the Sabbath.  Great.

[The Rabbi]

OK, so far we've got an anarchist system where you get executed for blasphemy or working on the Sabbath.  Great.

Works for me.