NationStates

Speaking hypothetically, what if all recognized governments (as in, recognized by the UN) collapsed overnight? What do you think would be the immediate effects? What about twenty years down the road? How would the disappearance of government-backed currencies affect corporations and the wealthy? Without government, would killing be reduced due to the lack of drug laws and massive, organized war, or would it increase do to an obviously under-equipped police force?

Anarchists would declare a great victory for humanity and promptly get killed off by a roving gang of marauders they didn't see coming.

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? What about twenty years down the road? How would the disappearance of government-backed currencies affect corporations and the wealthy? Without government, would killing be reduced due to the lack of drug laws and massive, organized war, or would it increase do to an obviously under-equipped police force?

All the non-UN local dictatorships/governments would probably use the confusion to grow into massive nuke-toting super-empires.


True thing, dat.

Well, if all nations recognized as 'legit' collapsed then:

Nuclear War Anyone?

Immediate effect?
Military or a person living down the road with large friends will take over.

Effect in 20 years?
Same thing as there is today: just with different leaders, form of government, may be names etc. Most likely military dictatorship through out the world.

Sucrati wrote:Well, if all nations recognized as 'legit' collapsed then:

Nuclear War Anyone?

All governments currently in possession of nuclear weapons are recognized as legal by virtually all of the UN. North Korea, for instance, is more legally recognized than Israel.

Sucrati wrote:Well, if all nations recognized as 'legit' collapsed then:

Nuclear War Anyone?

why will there be nuclear war? If all governments collapses then there is a power vaccume: someone (most likely military) will rise up and take control.

Great Nepal wrote:Immediate effect?
Military or a person living down the road with large friends will take over.

Effect in 20 years?
Same thing as there is today: just with different leaders, form of government, may be names etc. Most likely military dictatorship through out the world.

It seems highly unlikely that the current military of, say the U.S., could totally occupy the whole country without organized national taxation, or at least government backed currency to plunder.

Great Nepal wrote:

Sucrati wrote:Well, if all nations recognized as 'legit' collapsed then:

Nuclear War Anyone?

why will there be nuclear war? If all governments collapses then there is a power vaccume: someone (most likely military) will rise up and take control.

*Goes to draw up fictitious map of possible new world*

If governments were to all disappear immediately, I think it would definitely be chaotic. Government-backed currencies (what economists call "fiat" currencies) would be replaced by precious metals (in all likelihood, gold and silver would become the global currency once again, as they were for most of history). The transition period would be chaotic, but I think businesses would eventually adjust and set their prices in whatever the market chose as the new currency. With the collapse of the police force but also of the laws that create a black market and of the war machines, I think the level of violence would probably be about the same. In areas where the citizens tend to be armed (Switzerland, Texas etc.), I think the result would be a decline in violence, but in areas where the government bans guns, the result would be more violence. In the long term, violence would go down, as the population would be armed and would be able to take responsibility for their own defense.

That being said, it is absolutely irresponsible to advocate the immediate abolition of government. Once we have a very limited government, we can start seriously discussing the merits of anarchism as compared to a small amount of government. I'm not convinced that anarchism would be chaotic (provided that it is phased in gradually), as a few anarchist or semi-anarchist societies have existed in the past and did not result in the chaos predicted by anti-anarchists. Iceland and Ireland during the Middle Ages somewhat resembled anarchism, as did the "Wild" West. Neither the Iceland of the Sagas or the "Wild" West were as wild as the myths say. The reason why the stories of these periods are remembered is because they were rare. Even Somalia did pretty well under anarchism, if you compare anarchist Somalia to its neighbors or to Somalia pre-anarchy (under a Communist regime). Somalia had positive economic growth, while many of its neighbors retrogressed and the job of providing law was taken up by religious courts. This is sub-Saharan Africa we are talking about, so obviously these countries have always been impoverished and backward (even the "great empires" that PCized history textbooks talk about in this region weren't great by any standard other than the standards of Africa south of the Sahara). With the exception of access to education (which, of course, is always heavily subsidized by government and often run by government), Somalia improved in virtually every area during its anarchist period.

Anarchism might work out well or it might not. There is no way to know for sure until we try it and I don't know if I would want to actually take that risk.

Turmoilandia wrote:as did the "Wild" West. Neither the Iceland of the Sagas or the "Wild" West were as wild as the myths say.

Then again, the 19th Century West saw a considerable amount of gun control.

If you're looking for a (relatively) modern example of actual anarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Somaliland and Taiwan would become superpowers and spark a new coldwar.

It would merely level the playing field for the next set of would be world conquerors. The anarchists would shit themselves, first in ecstasy at the end of government, then in terror as new governments were formed.

Big Jim P wrote:It would merely level the playing field for the next set of would be world conquerors. The anarchists would shit themselves, first in ecstasy at the end of government, then in terror as new governments were formed.

Its beautiful when you put it like that.

Big Jim P wrote:It would merely level the playing field for the next set of would be world conquerors. The anarchists would shit themselves, first in ecstasy at the end of government, then in terror as new governments were formed.

It would probably take a fucking long time before any government could control things on the level current ones do, though. Possibly over a hundred years.

Lackadaisical2 wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:It would merely level the playing field for the next set of would be world conquerors. The anarchists would shit themselves, first in ecstasy at the end of government, then in terror as new governments were formed.

Its beautiful when you put it like that.

I am a poet. What can I say?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:It would merely level the playing field for the next set of would be world conquerors. The anarchists would shit themselves, first in ecstasy at the end of government, then in terror as new governments were formed.

It would probably take a fucking long time before any government could control things on the level current ones do, though. Possibly over a hundred years.

True, it might take a hundred years, it might take a thousand, but new governments are inevitable.

Governments usually have a set of subordinate power structures - police, military, intelligence services.

"Toppling a government" usually means removing the power source that runs the entire state, which leaves these power structures at will to do whatever they want - in case a new and strong leadership does not appear soon enough. That's what has basically happened in almost every "democratic revolution". Eastern Europe after 1989 and Myanmar are quite the examples.

Should all world governments fall overnight, it won't be long enough before they get replaced by military dictatorships or oligarchies run by former cops and intelligence agents.

Big Jim P wrote:True, it might take a hundred years, it might take a thousand, but new governments are inevitable.

Yeah, just saying current anarchists might not survive to see them, not the big ones, anyhow.

Hypparchia wrote:Governments usually have a set of subordinate power structures - police, military, intelligence services.

"Toppling a government" usually means removing the power source that runs the entire state, which leaves these power structures at will to do whatever they want - in case a new and strong leadership does not appear soon enough. That's what has basically happened in almost every "democratic revolution". Eastern Europe after 1989 and Myanmar are quite the examples.

Should all world governments fall overnight, it won't be long enough before they get replaced by military dictatorships or oligarchies run by former cops and intelligence agents.

You forget how much money those subordinate structures require to run.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:True, it might take a hundred years, it might take a thousand, but new governments are inevitable.

Yeah, just saying current anarchists might not survive to see them, not the big ones, anyhow.

Small governments at the family/clan/tribal level would spring up in very short order however.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Hypparchia wrote:Governments usually have a set of subordinate power structures - police, military, intelligence services.

"Toppling a government" usually means removing the power source that runs the entire state, which leaves these power structures at will to do whatever they want - in case a new and strong leadership does not appear soon enough. That's what has basically happened in almost every "democratic revolution". Eastern Europe after 1989 and Myanmar are quite the examples.

Should all world governments fall overnight, it won't be long enough before they get replaced by military dictatorships or oligarchies run by former cops and intelligence agents.

You forget how much money those subordinate structures require to run.

Finance that was formerly under government control ?

Big Jim P wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:
Yeah, just saying current anarchists might not survive to see them, not the big ones, anyhow.

Small governments at the family/clan/tribal level would spring up in very short order however.

Which some anarchists aren't necessarily opposed to. I think gang theft and violence and gang governments would be more of an initial issue. Like with that anarchist community in Denmark--what was it called? Very peaceful until a biker gang terrorized the hell out of it.

Hypparchia wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:You forget how much money those subordinate structures require to run.

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 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.

Well in this case, I guess it also depends on the structure of the previous government. The army still holds a pretty tight grip over power in Myanmar, and oligarchies in some former Eastern Bloc countries still don't show any signs of weakness.

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.