Do we need government?

[Zottistan]

Quite easily. By continuing to harass the people who are excluding you, by damaging their property, by generally being a nuisance, etc.

Then force is required. It is not coercion by the government against the governed though.

It's the use of violence, in any case, and if they are to be successful in their efforts to suppress the opposition they'll require a monopoly on the use of violence.

[Skinia]

Government can be good for some things, like creating jobs for those in need when work becomes less available, as well as providing for those unable to work. Though the government doesn't do much good when it becomes too corrupt/unwilling to help, or just overbearing.

Governments don't "create jobs" except maybe for jobs on the public sector.

[Olivaero]

Then force is required. It is not coercion by the government against the governed though.

It's the use of violence, in any case, and if they are to be successful in their efforts to suppress the opposition they'll require a monopoly on the use of violence.

We're talking about course of action to deal with criminals not to deal with people with different opinions.

[Zottistan]

It's the use of violence, in any case, and if they are to be successful in their efforts to suppress the opposition they'll require a monopoly on the use of violence.

We're talking about course of action to deal with criminals not to deal with people with different opinions.

Criminals are just people with radically different opinions, and that's missing the point. A monopoly on violence exists, therefore a state exists.

[Wawanati]

a form of hierarchy would take governments place among small, tight knit groups as the ability to enforce decisions would be nulled out in anything larger. the brutal would be rewarded and everyone else would either suffer or repeat the cycle.

[Olivaero]

We're talking about course of action to deal with criminals not to deal with people with different opinions.

Criminals are just people with radically different opinions, and that's missing the point. A monopoly on violence exists, therefore a state exists.

Specifically Anti-social opinions. It is impossible to integrate people with extremely anti-social behaviors into society because their behavior specifically precludes it. Laws existing does not mean a state exists.

[Trygg]

The short answer would be that some of us do, and some of us don't.

[Harpers Ferry]

a form of hierarchy would take governments place among small, tight knit groups as the ability to enforce decisions would be nulled out in anything larger. the brutal would be rewarded and everyone else would either suffer or repeat the cycle.

And this is a good alternative....how? Perhaps a few million years ago your idea would catch on and not seem out of place.

[Zottistan]

Criminals are just people with radically different opinions, and that's missing the point. A monopoly on violence exists, therefore a state exists.

Specifically Anti-social opinions. It is impossible to integrate people with extremely anti-social behaviors into society because their behavior specifically precludes it. Laws existing does not mean a state exists.

Law necessitates a monopoly on violence. A monopoly on violence is the definition of a state.

[Syndicapolis]

Ultimately we need communism, but what type of government, i.e. political organisation, we need depends on socioeconomic conditions. Right now we need government to provide healthcare, welfare and education to stop poor people from being as fucked as they otherwise would be, and because the root causes of crime are never going to be tackled effectively under capitalism, we need a governmental justice system. After a revolution, a government would still be needed to suppress counter-revolution and smoothen the transition to a new economic system, even if said economic system would cause the withering away of the state once fully implemented. Government isn't some sort of metaphysical constant necessary for humanity to function, but in certain conditions it is necessary.

[Olivaero]

Specifically Anti-social opinions. It is impossible to integrate people with extremely anti-social behaviors into society because their behavior specifically precludes it. Laws existing does not mean a state exists.

Law necessitates a monopoly on violence. A monopoly on violence is the definition of a state.

No they don't. And not necessarily.

[Harpers Ferry]

Ultimately we need communism, but what type of government, i.e. political organisation, we need depends on socioeconomic conditions. Right now we need government to provide healthcare, welfare and education to stop poor people from being as fucked as they otherwise would be, and because the root causes of crime are never going to be tackled effectively under capitalism, we need a governmental justice system. After a revolution, a government would still be needed to suppress counter-revolution and smoothen the transition to a new economic system, even if said economic system would cause the withering away of the state once fully implemented. Government isn't some sort of metaphysical constant necessary for humanity to function, but in certain conditions it is necessary.

As has been proven many, many times: communism is not a practical system of economics or rule.

[Skinia]

Ultimately we need communism, but what type of government, i.e. political organisation, we need depends on socioeconomic conditions. Right now we need government to provide healthcare, welfare and education to stop poor people from being as fucked as they otherwise would be, and because the root causes of crime are never going to be tackled effectively under capitalism, we need a governmental justice system. After a revolution, a government would still be needed to suppress counter-revolution and smoothen the transition to a new economic system, even if said economic system would cause the withering away of the state once fully implemented. Government isn't some sort of metaphysical constant necessary for humanity to function, but in certain conditions it is necessary.

Communism is a stateless and classless, i.e. inherently anarchist ideology and society.

[Welskerland]

Government is both a necessary evil and inevitable. True anarchy is impossible (or at least implausible). Even in stateless societies, people are likely to form into groups for protection, common interests, etc, so there is still government in that sense.

[Lady Helena]

Ultimately we need communism, but what type of government, i.e. political organisation, we need depends on socioeconomic conditions. Right now we need government to provide healthcare, welfare and education to stop poor people from being as fucked as they otherwise would be, and because the root causes of crime are never going to be tackled effectively under capitalism, we need a governmental justice system. After a revolution, a government would still be needed to suppress counter-revolution and smoothen the transition to a new economic system, even if said economic system would cause the withering away of the state once fully implemented. Government isn't some sort of metaphysical constant necessary for humanity to function, but in certain conditions it is necessary.

Communism is a stateless and classless, i.e. inherently anarchist ideology and society.

The ultimate difference would be that Communism demands a transitional period. Also, I don't think transactions and sales of goods are banned in an anarchist society. Which is technically lawless.

[Margno]

I notice that first you say that there will be widespread looting, and then you say that corporations will take over everything. If there was widespread looting, in what sense do corporations even exist anymore? They're defined by their property, which we have just taken from them. If there are corporations but no government, we can't be stopped from dismantling the corporations. If the corporations still have the means to, collectively, enforce a coercive ban on larceny, then there's still a government, just a kleptocratic one, which kind of kills the point of this being a thought experiment in what would happen if the anarchists had their way.

[Zottistan]

Law necessitates a monopoly on violence. A monopoly on violence is the definition of a state.

No they don't. And not necessarily.

How can you enforce law without a monopoly on violence? How do you forcibly exclude people without the ability to forcibly exclude them?

And yes, necessarily.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

We need Communism.

[Zottistan]

We need Communism.

Why?

[Pandeeria]

Anyone who thinks we don't need a government are simply too idealistic.

[Pandeeria]

We need Communism.

I prefer improving living standards and consumerism, thank you very much.

[Skinia]

Communism is a stateless and classless, i.e. inherently anarchist ideology and society.

The ultimate difference would be that Communism demands a transitional period. Also, I don't think transactions and sales of goods are banned in an anarchist society. Which is technically lawless.

Transactions aren't banned in anarchy. They're not banned in communism either, so I don't really know what you're talking about. And no, anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness, be it 'technically' or 'theoretically' or in any way.

[Lady Helena]

Essentially all government forms are viable under the right circumstances. And all circumstances are possible with humanity. Therefore, there shall be examples of each government type succeeding and failing. In the end, it's the desires and opinions of the majority of the people who decide which type they let govern themselves. So, with a small enough population, Anarchy as a political theory is possible and sustainable.

[Olivaero]

No they don't. And not necessarily.

How can you enforce law without a monopoly on violence? How do you forcibly exclude people without the ability to forcibly exclude them?

And yes, necessarily.

The decision to exclude some one is done without violence after that they are treated the way any external threat is. they would essentially in your scenario be declaring a one man war against the commune for not allowing them to steal or hurt people or whatever anti-social behaviour they are exhibiting in excess. According to Max Weber it is sure.

[Zottistan]

How can you enforce law without a monopoly on violence? How do you forcibly exclude people without the ability to forcibly exclude them?

And yes, necessarily.

The decision to exclude some one is done without violence after that they are treated the way any external threat is. they would essentially in your scenario be declaring a one man war against the commune for not allowing them to steal or hurt people or whatever anti-social behaviour they are exhibiting in excess.

Which still requires a monopoly on violence to be responded to.

According to Max Weber it is sure.

According to sociology as a science. This is even the definition most anarchists accept.