2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettExcellent definition.
Anarchism literally means to be without rulers. From the Greek archos=ruler. Anarchos=having no ruler.
My dictionary defines anarchism as: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
Adopting panarchy and eliminating present government - allowing “associated individuals and groups” to create and control their own societies most likely would lead to unpleasant situations. In all probability todays gangs would be the basis for these "groups.” That which is seen today in smaller scale in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool would have perfect conditions to develop into grand scale. Turf wars and gang feuds, i.e.: Control by tuffs.
""The largest number of gangs are in Hackney, east London (22 gangs); Enfield in north London (13); Lambeth and Merton in south London (12 gangs each); Waltham Forest in north east London (11) and Brent in north west London (11). Criminologist Dr. John Pitts, of University of Bedfordshire, said: “There are probably no more than 1,500 to 2,000 people in gangs in all of London, but their impact is enormous.""
With panarchy, my concern would be allowing a situation in which these “associated groups” could gain ultimate power over normal individuals who would be absolutely defenseless against them.
Originally posted by rwingett"We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams"
"We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams"
-Arthur O'Shaughnessy
So join the long line of people who can only see problems instead of possibilities. Instead of giving us an endless litany of reasons why it would never work, why don't you give us a little input as to what might make it work better? Perhaps you need to exercise your idealism a little more and your cynicism a little less.
You Sir are a smoker of Botanicals, and nothing more. That, however does not make you a bad person, just an F'd up one.
Granny.
Originally posted by MacSwainI see absolutely no reason why you would reach that conclusion, except for your attachment to the vulgar definition of anarchism as being equated with lawless mobs. I do not accept your "probability" as being anything more than a wild guess. But I have no desire to go to the trouble of defending anarchism in these threads yet again. I am here to discuss panarchism.
Excellent definition.
Adopting panarchy and eliminating present government - allowing “associated individuals and groups” to create and control their own societies most likely would lead to unpleasant situations. In all probability todays gangs would be the basis for these ‘groups.” That which is seen today in smaller scale in London, Birmingham, Manche ...[text shortened]... ld gain ultimate power over normal individuals who would be absolutely defenseless against them.
Panarchism would not eliminate present governmental types. It would rearrange them by making every conceivable (and desirable) type of government broadly available to whomever wants it. I have previously touched on the scope of powers these "governments" may or may not have to themselves, and those which may either be left to a neutral central government or shared in common.
Perhaps each of the competing government types would not have access to military force. Perhaps the army (if there would still be need for one) and the police force would be neutral spheres dedicated to upholding the sanctity of each separate political sphere (amongst their usual duties). Think of it as a non-territorial confederation. In such an arrangement people are always free to drop their membership from any governmental sphere and join another if the conditions are no longer to their liking.
Could it fail? Of course. But does the possibility of failure mean we should wring our hands and despair from ever trying? Should we always opt to remain with the devil we already know? That outlook is afflicted with twin scourges of pessimism and defeatism to such an extent that such a man comes to believe that his own misery really is the best of all possible worlds. Such a poverty of aspiration is among the greatest tragedies imaginable.
Originally posted by rwingettFriends tell me that large areas of Berlin pretty much reflect functional anarchy. At the same time supposedly few people in those areas (eg. tracts of East Berlin empty until recently) are over 40.
My dictionary defines anarchism as: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThats only because their evil governments wont let them. We all know that given a choice the whole world would rather prefer to live under an American style form of Republican representative democracy.
Why would the most popular government be the most aggressive one? If everyone wanted to join the same government, then what would be the problem? But experience has shown that's not likely to happen.
Competing Governments should offer incentives to join and if you the consumer played your cards right if you changed your allegiance about tax time you might get by without paying any for a very long time. Should really suit all the libertarians.
Originally posted by kmax87Territorially based governments can easily control the actions of their constituents. It's difficult to get out of the country and go somewhere else. But if countries are done away with and governments are non-territorial then its much more difficult for them to exercise that same level of control. I think almost all of the respondents in this thread have failed to grasp that significance.
Thats only because their evil governments wont let them. We all know that given a choice the whole world would rather prefer to live under an American style form of Republican representative democracy.
Competing Governments should offer incentives to join and if you the consumer played your cards right if you changed your allegiance about tax time you might get by without paying any for a very long time. Should really suit all the libertarians.
I agree that competing governments should offer incentives for people to join them. But moving from one to the other isn't going to relieve you of your tax burden for the time you spent there. If you spend 11 months in California and then move to Ohio, you still have to pay your taxes to California.
Originally posted by rwingettwho enforces cooperation?
Anarchism literally means to be without rulers. From the Greek archos=ruler. Anarchos=having no ruler.
My dictionary defines anarchism as: a political theory holding all forms of government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.
Originally posted by rwingettThe mistake you have made is to call what you are talking about "governments". That is confusing everybody. In reality you are talking about an overall (possibly dictatorial?) government that takes care of the absolute necessities (rule of law, infrastructure etc) and then lower level entities (rather like political parties) that compete over various economic system related things. In some ways it might be a little like the US with its federal govt and state govts.
If people want to live under totalitarianism then that is their right. It would be their free choice not to be free. For things that tied to a specific locale that affect everyone, like speed limits, there would obviously have to be a mechanism for arriving at a universal set of laws. There would have to be a way to determine which laws would be universal a ...[text shortened]... heir group, such as their own economic policies, health care policies, education policies, etc.
However, the idea of allowing people to change government is obviously inherently flawed, as I would choose to join a low tax govt till I reach 55 then switch to one with high welfare, pensions etc! The real problem is that it is impossible to separate out and identify all the effects of an economic system whilst allowing people to live (and work) in the same area. If one economic policy causes your company to go bust, then all the employees - even those with different govts loose their jobs too.
I think the idea you are really putting forward is much closer to simply allowing people to decide to what extent and by which mechanism they pay tax / pay for social welfare/ pay for medical support etc while allowing them to benefit proportionally from their preferred method.
The problem is that although that may cause less complaints (as everyone has only themselves to blame) it usually results in increased suffering as people do not always make the best choices.
Originally posted by rwingett"I agree that competing governments should offer incentives for people to join them."
Territorially based governments can easily control the actions of their constituents. It's difficult to get out of the country and go somewhere else. But if countries are done away with and governments are non-territorial then its much more difficult for them to exercise that same level of control. I think almost all of the respondents in this thread have f ...[text shortened]... 11 months in California and then move to Ohio, you still have to pay your taxes to California.
Hypothetical: Say my govnmt. has mining engineers and mines and our economy is just making muster. A neighboring govnmt. has loads of mines, no engineers and offers massive incentives to "steal/attract" our engineers which will make us starve? What recourse? I can think of two immediately. Conscript engineers or attack.
"But if countries are done away with and governments are non-territorial then its much more difficult for them to exercise that same level of control."
I own my house and property, how can my deed be protected in a non-territorial government? How can an individual have property when the govnmt. can not? Would an individual have property rights?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYou call it cynicism; I call it realism. You question my motives; you should be questioning my grounds.
"We are the music makers, We are the dreamers of dreams"
-Arthur O'Shaughnessy
So join the long line of people who can only see problems instead of possibilities. Instead of giving us an endless litany of reasons why it would never work, why don't you give us a little input as to what might make it work better? Perhaps you need to exercise your idealism a little more and your cynicism a little less.
I feel the same way about reducing carbon emissions: it's noble to try in the West, but ultimately pointless. The incentives for China and India to keep developing, and thereby increase the world's overall carbon footprint, are just too strong to counteract, whatever we do. According to key climatologists, it is now no longer sufficient to reduce the expansion of out carbon footprint; we must reduce it. But that's never going to happen. So, let's hope that James Lovelock and his ilk are being pessimistic in predicting a worldwide torrid future.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat are you smoking? Get out of that library and get a real job.
Territorially based governments can easily control the actions of their constituents. It's difficult to get out of the country and go somewhere else. But if countries are done away with and governments are non-territorial then its much more difficult for them to exercise that same level of control. I think almost all of the respondents in this thread have f ...[text shortened]... 11 months in California and then move to Ohio, you still have to pay your taxes to California.
G.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. I don't think you'd necessarily have to have a central government. I think the police force, road commission, and things like that could be jointly controlled by the competing sectors. They could all negotiate a common set of laws where necessary and implement their own where it is not.
The mistake you have made is to call what you are talking about "governments". That is confusing everybody. In reality you are talking about an overall (possibly dictatorial?) government that takes care of the absolute necessities (rule of law, infrastructure etc) and then lower level entities (rather like political parties) that compete over various econ ...[text shortened]... lame) it usually results in increased suffering as people do not always make the best choices.
You qualms about allowing people to change governments are simple to refute. Obviously if you've live in a certain system for X number of years, you'd be vested in that system to a certain extent, and would have access to all the benefits therein. People who jump aboard at 55 would obviously not be eligible for the full range of benefits for a number of years hence. Each sector would also maintain its own economic sphere. The businesses in the capitalist sphere would be privately owned. Businesses in the socialist sphere would be publicly owned. Citizens would work in the sphere they are politically associated with.
So on a typical street, you could have five houses with people who have opted for the capitalist sphere and five who have opted for the socialist sphere. On the next street is one factory which is privately owned and one that is worker owned. The people in the capitalist sphere would work in the privately owned factory while those from the socialist sphere would go to the worker owned factory. If one factory produces TVs while the other produces washing machines, the two spheres could trade with each other at whatever terms they agree upon.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainIf one sphere has a particular resource that another does not then they would initiate trade to acquire some. Just as people do now and have always done. If one side wants to retain their engineers badly enough they would have to offer some incentives to get them to stay. Although, personally, I feel any society would be better off without having a bunch of engineers around who invariably feel they're the pinnacle of evolution.
"I agree that competing governments should offer incentives for people to join them."
Hypothetical: Say my govnmt. has mining engineers and mines and our economy is just making muster. A neighboring govnmt. has loads of mines, no engineers and offers massive incentives to "steal/attract" our engineers which will make us starve? What recourse? I ividual have property when the govnmt. can not? Would an individual have property rights?
Conscription would provide no effect as it would simply be too easy for people to escape it.
I see no reason why people could not have property rights. A governmental sphere could have property rights as well. They could own a factory, for example. But they wouldn't have territorial rights.