3 ms·
Anarchy no matter what seems to still lead into hierarchy. Even if it ends up wherein land owners are top of hierarchy and everyone else is below. But then the
by incomingpain 3y ago
Anarchy no matter what seems to still lead into hierarchy. Even if it ends up wherein land owners are top of hierarchy and everyone else is below.
But then there's the land owners who own enough land that they become the government. They have a security force. They have a sheriff. I think this is what people are dreaming about being when they want anarchy.
- FireInsight 3y agoMost anarchists are against private land ownership.
- hnbad 3y agoWhat does it mean to "own land" when there is no state or private army to manifest that claim? It sounds like you're thinking in terms of "anarcho-capitalism" which tries to maintain the idea of private property without a state. That is, by the way, why anarchists don't consider "anarcho-capitalism" a form of anarchism. Its founder primarily chose the label because they liked the sound of it, not because the idea had any but the most superficial ties to prior anarchist thought. At best you can make a claim for land ownership through land use and even that is contingent on the consent of others. Humans are social animals. We may have created various fictions to justify hierarchies between us (e.g. divine right, private property, legal contracts) but at the end of the day the only thing enforcing them is the threat of physical violence at the hands of the state (i.e. police or military) or the ruler's private army (as in a monarchy). Without those, those fictions are only contingent on each individual's willingness to maintain them. Arguably the only function of the state is to manifest private property in the first place (whether to protect pre-existing claims or to allow the creation of new ones such as through intellectual property laws).