Without the Government and Capitalism, everything would collapse and it would just be like Mad Max!
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called “dual power”, or more generally, “prefigurative politics”. It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it’s worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.
…there are A LOT of criminals out there…
This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people’s basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately “bad”. You seem to at least partly agree with this position:
…way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing.
Anarchists aim to have everyone’s basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won’t entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
From my first comment I have simply stated that anarchism is not the answer.
You don’t appear to necessarily be arguing against that. You do state that you think we can all come together and sing kumbaya if things fall apart. I’ll agree I think that could happen on an extremely small scale in very small communities, but not on a city/state/national level.
If Bosses and Cops are the only thing stopping anyone from going all Mad Max, then we would already be in that Anarchist Dystopia you’re imagining because the Mad Max Style Hooligans you imagine wouldn’t care about what the Law or some Rich Guy says.
If the only thing stopping you from going all Mad Max are cops and bosses, then I think you should examine why and maybe, perhaps, seek help, because the average person doesn’t go about going “I wanna kill people but the only thing stopping me is the Cops.”
For anarchism to work, there has to be similar enough values and cultures among different communities to trust each other. But the world is too diverse at the moment for that to happen. I mean, anarchism is possible like the Fremens in Dune, but it would take a long time for a planetary wide cultural convergence to allow anarchism to thrive.
I mean we have multicultural anarchism at the global scale, there is no single world government and international law is more a set of recommendations
It would also certainly have to be federated.
One could argue that most of the people who want to go all Mad Max do in fact break the law to do so, and are now in jail. Or do you think that disturbed people who want to do harm to the general populace don’t exist?
I think it’s a bit straw-man-y to say that people who argue that “without law there would be chaos” are saying they want chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite. There is clearly some minority slice of humanity that just wants to cause others harm, and we need some sort of structure/order to keep those people from causing harm. I find that most people advocating for anarchy don’t really have a good answer to how we handle antisocial behavior.
I work in a position that enables me to actually confirm this to be true. There are A LOT of criminals out there. And if society started collapsing a lot of previously good people would turn into criminals out of desperation or opportunity. I honestly don’t think the average person understands how many people there are out there that have no problem with the idea of taking advantage of others and even just the threat of law enforcement is what stops them.
No, they certainly do not. Every time I’ve gotten into an argument with an anarchist their ideology falls to pieces as soon as I start asking the difficult questions.
I mean it wouldn’t devolve into mad max (at least not for long) because people would naturally organize into some sort of structure (like a government). This happens every time IRL.
Not sure what you’re going on about. You seem to have quoted something I didn’t say.
I’m not sure if you thought I meant I actually want to kill anarchists using magic. Clearly I was being sarcastic and just want them to learn from suffering under the form of existence they appear to want so badly.
And to be crystal clear, while I do have many qualms with law enforcement, I promise you that if law enforcement ceased to exist tomorrow our society would very quickly begin to collapse. Because there are A LOT of criminals out there and way, way more normal people that would become criminals out of desperation or opportunity if society began collapsing. To disagree with that is an admission of not being remotely aware of how many criminals actually exist or any familiarity with the human condition.
No sane anarchist is advocating for the collapse of society, or for law enforcement to disappear overnight. Anarchists generally advocate for new anarchic systems to be built alongside our current system, so that if/when our current system begins to collapse, the new ones will already be in place to replace it. This idea is called “dual power”, or more generally, “prefigurative politics”. It is obviously not an easy thing to do, but I think it’s worth trying; we should always be trying to build a better world.
This is absolutely the case, though I see this as an indictment on our current system more than anything. The anarchist position is that most crime is a result of people’s basic needs (food, shelter, physical or mental healthcare, etc.) not being met, rather than a result of that person being innately “bad”. You seem to at least partly agree with this position:
Anarchists aim to have everyone’s basic needs met, regardless of how much or how little they contribute back to society. This of course won’t entirely eliminate antisocial behavior, so we will also need some form of anarchic community defence to intervene in such cases.
This is a society that is built around a system of forced for-profit market dependency that puts ownership enclosures over the land, commons, and productive forces into the hands of a small percentage of private capital owners then relies upon the forced dispossession of people from direct access to the means of subsistence (land, tools, resources) in order to create a class of individuals with no alternative but to sell their labor for a wage on the market so they can purchase the means of survival.
And that in order to enforce that requires a powerful state capable of using violence when necessary to uphold that.
So yeah, remove the enforcers and that system is likely to break down and a lot of people are going to try and loot and take what they need that they currently don’t have for survival in the short term.
It would also likely trigger our innate communal cooperative nature that has been key to our survival and evolution as a species.
I’m not personally an anarchist but I think you might be guilty of many of the things you accuse others of here.
From my first comment I have simply stated that anarchism is not the answer.
You don’t appear to necessarily be arguing against that. You do state that you think we can all come together and sing kumbaya if things fall apart. I’ll agree I think that could happen on an extremely small scale in very small communities, but not on a city/state/national level.