3 ms·

Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the r

Humans are social animals, we work together to survive and prosper. In order to work together we establish agreed upon rules which are "law". In order for the rules to be enforced some form of coercion is used otherwise how would they be enforced? Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay. Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless. It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.

trinsic2 4y ago
It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Leader or ruler denotes hierarchy and rules (laws) that must be enforced, my understanding of the word anarchy refers to no hierarchy and no coercion and no government. How do you enforce a code of conduct without threat of violence? What is the difference between a ruler and a leader who gives the orders to forcefully enact a law? You may stick to a code of conduct because you believe it to be right, others may not, what stops others from doing whatever they like to you? You can defend yourself (through violence) but you cannot do that against a larger better equipped group, instead you must be in your own group that is organized by a set rules that you must follow, and if you don't then there must be consequences. There is no such thing as a stable anarchy, it's simply law of the jungle.

trinsic2 4y ago

It seems to me that leaders (not rulers) and codes of conduct can still exist in this state. All that I understand Anarchy to mean is that there are no rulers that can oversee the many at the expense of the few.

SigmundA 4y ago
Leader or ruler denotes hierarchy and rules (laws) that must be enforced, my understanding of the word anarchy refers to no hierarchy and no coercion and no government. How do you enforce a code of conduct without threat of violence? What is the difference between a ruler and a leader who gives the orders to forcefully enact a law? You may stick to a code of conduct because you believe it to be right, others may not, what stops others from doing whatever they like to you? You can defend yourself (through violence) but you cannot do that against a larger better equipped group, instead you must be in your own group that is organized by a set rules that you must follow, and if you don't then there must be consequences. There is no such thing as a stable anarchy, it's simply law of the jungle.