NationStates

A lot of hypothetical people would die, hypothetical hell would finally reach capacity, and something approaching the hypothetical apocalypse would occur.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Hypparchia wrote:
Finance that was formerly under government control ?

Finance that is nearly impossible without government-backed currencies, regardless of whose government is backing it. Even without tax funding, most militaries could just rob banks or something, but without that it is extremely difficult to keep the required ammunition and fuel supplies up or to communicate with other units or have proper integration of expertise, ect. I don't think you quite realize the implications of the abolishment of government-backed currencies.

The currencies are merely abstract representations of resources, meaning the militaries would have to take whatever resources they needed directly. It would then be impossible to maintain modern military structures, as such things as ammunition and fuel do not grow on trees.

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:On the removal of the backing of a currency, there's the case of the Iraqi "swiss" Dinar. After the govt backing was removed it still functioned as a currency just because people were willing to accept it as a store of value even though technically it was worthless. So as long as people remain willing to accept a currency as payment (on the assumption that other people will also accept it as payment) it can still function despite not being backed by a govt.

It was backed by the Kurds' effective government.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:A lot of hypothetical people would die, hypothetical hell would finally reach capacity, and something approaching the hypothetical apocalypse would occur.

The internet would go down too, probably.

Big Jim P wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Finance that is nearly impossible without government-backed currencies, regardless of whose government is backing it. Even without tax funding, most militaries could just rob banks or something, but without that it is extremely difficult to keep the required ammunition and fuel supplies up or to communicate with other units or have proper integration of expertise, ect. I don't think you quite realize the implications of the abolishment of government-backed currencies.

The currencies are merely abstract representations of resources, meaning the militaries would have to take whatever resources they needed directly. It would then be impossible to maintain modern military structures, as such things as ammunition and fuel do not grow on trees.

Precisely.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:A lot of hypothetical people would die, hypothetical hell would finally reach capacity, and something approaching the hypothetical apocalypse would occur.

The internet would go down too, probably.

Hypothetical internet.

Dumb Ideologies wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
The internet would go down too, probably.

Hypothetical internet.

Theoretically.

There would be crossbow wielding punks on motorbikes killing people for the petrol

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:On the removal of the backing of a currency, there's the case of the Iraqi "swiss" Dinar. After the govt backing was removed it still functioned as a currency just because people were willing to accept it as a store of value even though technically it was worthless. So as long as people remain willing to accept a currency as payment (on the assumption that other people will also accept it as payment) it can still function despite not being backed by a govt.

It was backed by the Kurds' effective government.

There was no effective govt because there was no body taxing every Kurd. The power of a fiat money isn't just that the govt says "yeah we like this currency". It's that they only accept that currency as payment of taxes. So since there was no taxation system for the Kurds, the only reason it was still used was because other Kurds were willing to accept it as payment. One of the reasons they were willing to accept it is because the new Iraqi Dinar became very inflated.

Mr Bananagrabber wrote:There was no effective govt because there was no body taxing every Kurd. The power of a fiat money isn't just that the govt says "yeah we like this currency". It's that they only accept that currency as payment of taxes. So since there was no taxation system for the Kurds, the only reason it was still used was because other Kurds were willing to accept it as payment. One of the reasons they were willing to accept it is because the new Iraqi Dinar became very inflated.

Doesn't sound like it would be enough to run a military on, though, or that anyone outside the Kurds accepted it.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight?

Then Abkhazia and Transdniestria would rule...

The Parkus Empire wrote:Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight?

Collapsed unexpectedly? It would be a disaster for the most part. Not only would it disrupt the economy, but culturally people would be totally unprepared and would be scared out of their wits.

That doesn't mean that anarchies can't be a positive thing, but I do think that the initial conditions of a transition to anarchy make a great deal of difference. The smoother and more intentional the process, the better.

Anarchists would have an 'it seemed like a good idea at the time' moment as they starve.

It would cause mass chaos immediately afterward, but not terribly long after--say in a decade or two--some small semblances of government would form, be it a township or city-state. Its only natural.

Immediately: Roving gangs, lots of anarchy, massive rioting/looting, survivalist mode taking place, lots of dead people, the military maintaining semi-control, desperately trying to reign in the chaos.

In 20 years: The same sort of. Lots of places will still be in "every man for himself," survivalist mode. There will be communes that are self-sustaining. Smaller governments such as whole towns, cities and parts of states or even whole states retaking reasonable control and things gradually return to normal. I doubt whole countries will generally have been restablisahed, and those that are will be military dictatorships and not well off.

I see a world where some things can function reasonably well albeit in different from. I see perhaps New York City as its own city state perhaps incorporating the suburbs. Originally under military rule but then as a democracy. I see random implementations of government like perhaps Northern California becoming its own state and being able to run things or a place like Vancouver Island becoming autonomous. I also picture small towns out west becoming self-sustaining communes, that are quite well-off. Any place with a relatively small population to keep in check where everyone is willing to chip in and work will do alright.

New governments would arise. They wouldn't be states, though, at least at first. As long as they aren't states they would still (conceivably) be in line with anarchist ideology.

At first there would probably be widespread looting and violence, because unfortunately, with all the movie's that come out characterizing anarchy as being violent, people would almost feel like thats the right thing to do. Eventually order would re-establish itself. Just like Egypt where there were no police officers, and everybody talked about a "power vacuum" and how it was chaos. Actually it wasn't, people just formed neighborhood watches.

Its funny because if you ask somebody what they would do if the government collapsed, many talk about barricading themselves in their homes or basements and waiting it out, because they are afraid of all the chaos. Yet when everybody is barricaded inside their homes, it kind of isn't really chaos is it? And eventually people will get hungry sitting in their basements and say Hmmmm, I need to go to work. So people will go back to work.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight? What do you think would be the immediate effects?

A massive clusterfuck as many organized groups (jihadists, madmen, fundie christians, whatever) scramble to get hold of the military arsenals, while the general populace revels in a massive free-for-all made of robbery, rape, vendetta killings, and some racist genocide.

Hypothetically, the universal abolition of government would be shortly followed by the universal re-institution of government.

Risottia wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight? What do you think would be the immediate effects?

A massive clusterfuck as many organized groups (jihadists, madmen, fundie christians, whatever) scramble to get hold of the military arsenals, while the general populace revels in a massive free-for-all made of robbery, rape, vendetta killings, and some racist genocide.

Lmao you have watched too many movie's.

New new nebraska wrote:I see a world where some things can function reasonably well albeit in different from. I see perhaps New York City as its own city state perhaps incorporating the suburbs.

Actually I think places like NYC (and Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo etc.) will more likely see utter collapse than the rural areas. In cities people are far more dependent on large scale, highly organised and complex systems to survive. A farmer in a sparely populated area with reasonable rainfall will survive and adjust much better than a city office worker who relies on police to maintain the peace amongst people living in hugely cramped, crowded conditions, and whose food comes in frozen packs from supermarkets, and who knows what a farm looks like, because you see them in commercials all the time. Without policing, and without organised, regular logistic chains being able to operate uninterrupted and freely to bring in food, and once water, fuel and power supplies becomes unreliable, people will leave the cities very quickly to try and find less stressed areas. Areas with fewer people see be seen as safer (easier to hide/hole up, and fewer people to hide/hole up from), and food and (above all) water, will be easier to produce/find.

Given fight or flight, most (not all) people will figure their chances of surviving are better with flight. Most government disaster management plans (i.e. nuclear war preparation) are based on the assumption that prior to the crisis people will be adamant and resistant to move, but when the crisis becomes people will try and flee the cities, regardless of whether or not there is anywhere to go.

Bendira wrote:

Risottia wrote:A massive clusterfuck as many organized groups (jihadists, madmen, fundie christians, whatever) scramble to get hold of the military arsenals, while the general populace revels in a massive free-for-all made of robbery, rape, vendetta killings, and some racist genocide.

Lmao you have watched too many movie's.

No. I've watched too many news.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight? What do you think would be the immediate effects?

'Emergency' seizure of power by whatever was the most powerful secondary entity in each case - probably the military in most cases.

Possibly a descent into chaos, since such seizures might not instantly kick in all over, so there would be a storm of powergrabs and invasions... but eventually, settling into the kind of power seizure I mentioned above.

Taiwan would probably take over...

I haven't seen more than one anarcho-capitalist reply here. I was kinda hoping for more.