NationStates

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:50 pm**

Albul wrote:
Sociobiology wrote: not it doesn't work with a thousand people because the familiarity based social control used by band societies does not work with large numbers of people (~150-300), once you get to a thousand people you need laws and enforcement to maintain social order (as in basic civility), thus it is not anarchy.

anarchy's problems are fundamental and intrinsic, not a matter of popularity.

The people can make laws, which would really be social constructs or actual laws, depending on the community. Also, "anarchy" and "law" are not mutually exclusive. As for the order, it is simple; the people can maintain order.

law is different then codes of conduct, law is enforced, you don't get to break it because you disagree with it, whereas small groups you common codes of conduct enforced by coercive social pressure.
law means specialists, which means hierarchy, which means not anarchy.
the societies with laws are states and chiefdoms.
the people can only maintain order in small groups, we rely on intimate knowledge of the person to anticipate, punish and discourage violation, which is limited by Dunbar's number. large population means formal specialized enforcement.

the people can make laws, (although not well if the population is large) but the people can not enforce law effectively except in small groups.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:52 pm**

Slafstopia wrote:
Sociobiology wrote:one of the bigger reasons is direct democracy doesn't work on a large scale due to the limit in the number of hours in the day, and of course the need for specialized enforcement and courts, which means you get specialists either way.

Have any of you anti-direct folks ever considered the possibility of a confederation? Or that a long string of councils is more likely than just one? Or a virtual council?

yes they don't work they break up into small states, tribes, and cheifdoms quite quickly.
Also if it is a confederation it is not direct democracy.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:53 pm**

Slafstopia wrote:
The Teccorri Republic wrote:Yes, Confederation is also my favorite variant of representative democracy.

What does that have to do with Anarchy?

A confederation doesn't have to be representative. Well, a pseudo-confederation.

If there are a series of autonomous communes which are all self-policing, that problem is solved.

They would still have to communicate with one another, work out a means for defense from states and nations that don't follow their example of anarchistic-confederation, and assuming Capitalism (since Socialism is impossible without some degree of government), business would still have some sort of hierarchical setup.

All of these lead to government. I'm not bashing your thoughts, as I share them, but governance isn't something our species can just drop, cold turkey. It has to be a gradual process.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 8:54 pm**

Magna Libero wrote:
Albul wrote:I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

Also, different forms of anarchy should also be accepted in order for anarcho-anything to work.

Which raises the question how do people solve different disputes in anarchy? Eg Assume that a group of anarcho-capitalists put up a nuclear plant. Eco-anarchists want to destroy it and anarcho-communists oppose it also, because of corporate greed. Maybe a lil' stupid and overly simplified example.

Actually it raises the problem quite well, anarchy like all utopian societies only work if all the people in it are identical.

I quite like the idea of politicians, I just with we had better standards for picking them.
I always find it interesting to reflect that the very people most for direct democracy often are the most against the very politicians chosen by the people they propose make consistently good decisions.

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:00 pm**

Argentina Leone wrote:It is a highly unfeasible and very stupid ideology.

Why?

Sociobiology wrote:
Albul wrote:I'm sure it can work with a thousand and more people if there weren't any opposition to anarchy. The only way to do that, though, would be a social change that makes anarchy popular. Perhaps an oppressive tyrant was ruling before-hand and anarchy seems like the better of two evils.

not it doesn't work with a thousand people because the familiarity based social control used by band societies does not work with large numbers of people (~150-300), once you get to a thousand people you need laws and enforcement to maintain social order (as in basic civility), thus it is not anarchy.

anarchy's problems are fundamental and intrinsic, not a matter of popularity.

What if you have a loose confederation of small communes within a region roughly equivalent to a modern city or county?

Aetanovum wrote:The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.

"True anarchy" doesn't mean no overarching structure. Also,"the natural state" is far more egalitarian than what we have now.

The Teccorri Republic wrote:since Socialism is impossible without some degree of government

Not true, unless you're using "government" in a sense that anarchists don't oppose.

Sociobiology wrote:
Magna Libero wrote:Also, different forms of anarchy should also be accepted in order for anarcho-anything to work.

Which raises the question how do people solve different disputes in anarchy? Eg Assume that a group of anarcho-capitalists put up a nuclear plant. Eco-anarchists want to destroy it and anarcho-communists oppose it also, because of corporate greed. Maybe a lil' stupid and overly simplified example.

Actually it raises the problem quite well, anarchy like all utopian societies only work if all the people in it are identical.

How so?

Posted: **Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:09 pm**

Meryuma wrote:
Sociobiology wrote: not it doesn't work with a thousand people because the familiarity based social control used by band societies does not work with large numbers of people (~150-300), once you get to a thousand people you need laws and enforcement to maintain social order (as in basic civility), thus it is not anarchy.

anarchy's problems are fundamental and intrinsic, not a matter of popularity.

What if you have a loose confederation of small communes within a region roughly equivalent to a modern city or county?

that's called a collection of city-states, which defines most modern state societies, minus the word loose, it is the loose confederation that gets you in trouble, loose confederations don't stay confederated for long. mostly because communities vary in population and resources, and thus influence.
and again none of this comes close to any form of anarchy.

Sociobiology wrote:Actually it raises the problem quite well, anarchy like all utopian societies only work if all the people in it are identical.

How so?

unenforced laws only work if every single person agrees implicitly with every single law, which is impossible for a large population of free thinking individuals, or if the population is small enough for people to use intimate knowledge and direct social pressure to discourage plurality.
A large anarchy only works if you assume all humans are identical, thus utopian and impossible.

Posted: **Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:01 pm**

Threlizdun wrote:
Aetanovum wrote:The problem with true anarchy (not direct democracy, and no state exists), is that it gives no protection to the people, except from the prior state of course. Not everyone can just fend for themselves anymore. I also dislike how people say that equality is acheived in anarchy. Not everyone is equal physically, some people have guns, others do not. Anarchism reverts us back to are natural state. Is Anarchism natural? yes, does Anarchism promote equality? no. Equality, Order (Government), and Justice are synthetic. They are Man-made, people in an anarchy have no safety from one another. People(most) want safety, which is why government was formed. To make a group of people safe. Some form of government will always arise within the groups of a land in anarchy.
That would be an issue if anarchism advocated the complete removal of government and laws, the abandoning of others, and equality in absolutely every aspect as opposed to just social equality. Fortunately, it advocates none of those things.

If we outlaw law then only outlaws will have law.