7 ms·

This belief, while widely held is utterly unproven. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer

This belief, while widely held is utterly unproven. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer was doing pretty well for the most part until the imperialists interfered. The issues before were poor education and slow communication. If your neighbor country decided to conquer you, by the time you were mobilized to defend yourself you had already lost. Education has gotten vastly better over time. We didn't switch away from Monarchy because the monarchy decided to give up their power. The people became too educated to be controlled in this manner. Communication is also practically instant now. If a Genghis Khan began conquering a government-less world with our current level of technology, by the time he finished conquering the first neighbor he would already be surrounded by everyone else. I'm not saying Anarchy could work, but rather that we don't know yet. It's never been properly tried. Of course you would expect this. Governments don't want it to be tried because if it did somehow manage to work they would lose their power.

philwelch 16y ago
Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer was doing pretty well for the most part until the imperialists interfered. Hunter/gatherer did well for the vast majority of human history, all around the world. But imperialists did interfere. You can't handwave that away. Communication is also practically instant now. If a Genghis Khan began conquering a government-less world with our current level of technology, by the time he finished conquering the first neighbor he would already be surrounded by everyone else. Why would he be surrounded by anyone? People don't voluntarily protect each other unless they identify as part of the same group, whether tribal or national. How many Americans actually cared about the Syrian invasion and occupation of Lebanon? How many knew? And you expect people under anarchy to voluntarily mobilize for the sake of strangers around the world? Also, it's not entirely clear that our current level of technology and communication would continue to function without government; they likely require a free market system[1], and free markets require consistent property rights and a functioning legal system, both available to all people. None of this can be provided without a government. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Governments are even more entrenched, and it's not clear that it's even possible for major parts of the world to function without them. Empirically, I'd rather go with what's been proven to work and improve on it. [1] At minimum; you could maintain a communication infrastructure with a more centralized economic system, but that would be even less anarchic.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  First off, I would just point out that a tremendous amount of literature has been written about Anarchistic theory. Probably a lot more than we have time left in our lives to completely read. You can't just handwave the system away with "yea, but there are bad people!". This has obviously been covered at length. What the theory lacks is real world large scale testing which will obviously be extremely difficult to do. >You can't handwave that away. Which is why I didn't. I gave the reasons I believe people were susceptible to it and gave reasons that those problems may no longer apply. >And you expect people under anarchy to voluntarily mobilize for the sake of strangers around the world? I'm not expecting anything. I'm considering the possibility that if we switched to a government-less world (which would mean drastic changes, no government implies a great deal of other changes) that if someone tried to rise up and take it away from us people might mobilize to stop it. Your Syrian/Lebanon examples don't strictly apply because those are other countries. Invade the US and see how passive people are. In a government-less world there is no more "country". Potentially people would form other kinds of groups and not care about people outside of their group, but if they are ignorant enough to do that then they wont be intelligent enough to have an Anarchist system at all, Genghis Khan or no. >Also, it's not entirely clear that our current level of technology and communication would continue to function without government Open source and various open source systems seem to work well enough. It's not clear or proven but to do that someone would have to actually try it and see. >they likely require a free market system No, this is one of those drastic changes I was talking about. You can't have any kind of bartering system what so ever or it just devolves right back into the current system. Ancap is a nonsense theory like US-Libertarianism is for largely the same reasons. I do believe though, that the system isn't viable even with our current technology because I think that the constraint of having no barter system means there can be no work that has to be done that no one wants to do. This means we would have to have robots doing all that kind of work. >None of this can be provided without a government. Not true. If you're really interested, have a look at some Anarchist writing and see what they actually have to say about these issues. It's not some kind of cursed literature that will damn you for reading, it's just an idea that may even be wrong. >Governments are even more entrenched, and it's not clear that it's even possible for major parts of the world to function without them. Big parts of the world do function without them today. You don't have to buy into the system, I'm not convinced myself (and I have no confidence that it will be tried on a large enough scale on my lifetime anyway) but the effort put into it deserves more than the simple brush off that you give it. >Empirically, I'd rather go with what's been proven to work and improve on it. I wouldn't frame the system we have today as "proven to work" but rather "managed not to utterly fail outright". If you're a programmer you should be able to appreciate this difference. The issue with this mindset is that at some point the government system becomes a drag on progress. The government is always a drag to some extent but they usually provide a net gain due to the services they provide (e.g. justice system). When and if we reach the point that we could provide most or all of these services in a more efficient form than they do (e.g. email today vs. US Postal service or telegram service) all that remains is the drag. I think we're already seeing signs of this (e.g. government attempts to prop up the obsolete media distribution model).

philwelch 16y ago

Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer was doing pretty well for the most part until the imperialists interfered. Hunter/gatherer did well for the vast majority of human history, all around the world. But imperialists did interfere. You can't handwave that away. Communication is also practically instant now. If a Genghis Khan began conquering a government-less world with our current level of technology, by the time he finished conquering the first neighbor he would already be surrounded by everyone else. Why would he be surrounded by anyone? People don't voluntarily protect each other unless they identify as part of the same group, whether tribal or national. How many Americans actually cared about the Syrian invasion and occupation of Lebanon? How many knew? And you expect people under anarchy to voluntarily mobilize for the sake of strangers around the world? Also, it's not entirely clear that our current level of technology and communication would continue to function without government; they likely require a free market system[1], and free markets require consistent property rights and a functioning legal system, both available to all people. None of this can be provided without a government. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Governments are even more entrenched, and it's not clear that it's even possible for major parts of the world to function without them. Empirically, I'd rather go with what's been proven to work and improve on it. [1] At minimum; you could maintain a communication infrastructure with a more centralized economic system, but that would be even less anarchic.

loewenskind 16y ago
First off, I would just point out that a tremendous amount of literature has been written about Anarchistic theory. Probably a lot more than we have time left in our lives to completely read. You can't just handwave the system away with "yea, but there are bad people!". This has obviously been covered at length. What the theory lacks is real world large scale testing which will obviously be extremely difficult to do. >You can't handwave that away. Which is why I didn't. I gave the reasons I believe people were susceptible to it and gave reasons that those problems may no longer apply. >And you expect people under anarchy to voluntarily mobilize for the sake of strangers around the world? I'm not expecting anything. I'm considering the possibility that if we switched to a government-less world (which would mean drastic changes, no government implies a great deal of other changes) that if someone tried to rise up and take it away from us people might mobilize to stop it. Your Syrian/Lebanon examples don't strictly apply because those are other countries. Invade the US and see how passive people are. In a government-less world there is no more "country". Potentially people would form other kinds of groups and not care about people outside of their group, but if they are ignorant enough to do that then they wont be intelligent enough to have an Anarchist system at all, Genghis Khan or no. >Also, it's not entirely clear that our current level of technology and communication would continue to function without government Open source and various open source systems seem to work well enough. It's not clear or proven but to do that someone would have to actually try it and see. >they likely require a free market system No, this is one of those drastic changes I was talking about. You can't have any kind of bartering system what so ever or it just devolves right back into the current system. Ancap is a nonsense theory like US-Libertarianism is for largely the same reasons. I do believe though, that the system isn't viable even with our current technology because I think that the constraint of having no barter system means there can be no work that has to be done that no one wants to do. This means we would have to have robots doing all that kind of work. >None of this can be provided without a government. Not true. If you're really interested, have a look at some Anarchist writing and see what they actually have to say about these issues. It's not some kind of cursed literature that will damn you for reading, it's just an idea that may even be wrong. >Governments are even more entrenched, and it's not clear that it's even possible for major parts of the world to function without them. Big parts of the world do function without them today. You don't have to buy into the system, I'm not convinced myself (and I have no confidence that it will be tried on a large enough scale on my lifetime anyway) but the effort put into it deserves more than the simple brush off that you give it. >Empirically, I'd rather go with what's been proven to work and improve on it. I wouldn't frame the system we have today as "proven to work" but rather "managed not to utterly fail outright". If you're a programmer you should be able to appreciate this difference. The issue with this mindset is that at some point the government system becomes a drag on progress. The government is always a drag to some extent but they usually provide a net gain due to the services they provide (e.g. justice system). When and if we reach the point that we could provide most or all of these services in a more efficient form than they do (e.g. email today vs. US Postal service or telegram service) all that remains is the drag. I think we're already seeing signs of this (e.g. government attempts to prop up the obsolete media distribution model).