Would an Anarchist Society Have a Legal System?

[Azrael]

Again you're mistaking anarchism for a total absence of hierarchy ...

Not at all: it's obvious that some kind of hierarchy is going to be needed on some occasions. I just don't see that this limited and temporary hierarchy would be qualitatively distinct in practice from the alternatives. The laws might be more democratic (whether they'd be fairer is another matter) but the function of the law wouldn't be radically different from the POV of the prisoner at the bar.

 

[Cid]

Do you not fear death? Fear of death is a good motivator.

So why don't you do that now? Go to your local shops and say 'you're going to have to support my campaign to rule the UK or I will kill you'. See how they react.

I believe it is your concept of "established" power that has detached you from the how power primarily arises and how all it take is a corrupt man with the desire to own the world to slowly and carefully raise themselves above everyone.

Look at the situations dictators rise up in, it's not just because they're intelligent people manipulating slightly less intelligent people... In pretty much every case I can think of they rely on widespread political upheaval, widespread poverty (or economic sanctions), very low levels of education and any number of other factors... A well educated population with high levels of social equality and living standards is just unlikely to have that happen.

 

[DotCommunist]

So why don't you do that now? Go to your local shops and say 'you're going to have to support my campaign to rule the UK or I will kill you'. See how they react.



Look at the situations dictators rise up in, it's not just because they're intelligent people manipulating slightly less intelligent people... In pretty much every case I can think of they rely on widespread political upheaval, widespread poverty (or economic sanctions), very low levels of education and any number of other factors... A well educated population with high levels of social equality and living standards is just unlikely to have that happen.

Just so. King Bread holds more allegiance than King Charles, when times get hard.

 

[frogwoman]

Well quite - who'd go back to the feudal system, for example?

me

 

[Cid]

Can we burn you at the stake for being a heretic then?

 

[frogwoman]

*prepares ducking stool*

 

[Azrael]

Well quite - who'd go back to the feudal system, for example?

Depends: do I get to be one of these chaps ...

... or these chaps?

 

[bhamgeezer]

So why don't you do that now? Go to your local shops and say 'you're going to have to support my campaign to rule the UK or I will kill you'. See how they react.

Funny some guy did that just down the road and in the end he got 2 years

Look at the situations dictators rise up in, it's not just because they're intelligent people manipulating slightly less intelligent people... In pretty much every case I can think of they rely on widespread political upheaval, widespread poverty (or economic sanctions), very low levels of education and any number of other factors... A well educated population with high levels of social equality and living standards is just unlikely to have that happen.

Maybe in a select community of educated types but in the real world I doubt it. Also dictators arn't necessarily the brains of operation, but if you look at most them they had the backing of small group of academic and financial elite.

 

[kyser_soze]

I believe it is your concept of "established" power that has detached you from the how power primarily arises and how all it take is a corrupt man with the desire to own the world to slowly and carefully raise themselves above everyone.

Also dictators arn't necessarily the brains of operation, but if you look at most them they had the backing of small group of academic and financial elite.

So, it does take more than one man then.

 

[Cid]

Maybe in a select community of educated types but in the real world I doubt it. Also dictators arn't necessarily the brains of operation, but if you look at most them they had the backing of small group of academic and financial elite.

But this does happen in the real world; western Europe, Canada etc are unlikely to see the rise of another dictator in the current climate (it's another matter entirely if this fairly tenuous equilibrium breaks down of course) and this isn't just because of state power... Standards of life are relatively high, people feel they can make an impact, they have rights etc. People don't want to give that up, they don't want to see war on their home patch, it's that simple. A dictator needs huge levels of support, you can't create an uprising with a few hundred people on your side because you'll have several million other people standing in your way... Imagine what would happen if the BNP tried to take power in Britain, they're able to play on the fears of a poorly educated few, but those fears are often related to poverty (immigrants taking our jobs etc) and when they try and operate on a larger scale they just come up against a wall of people who don't buy their shit.

 

[bhamgeezer]

But this does happen in the real world; western Europe, Canada etc are unlikely to see the rise of another dictator in the current climate (it's another matter entirely if this fairly tenuous equilibrium breaks down of course) and this isn't just because of state power... Standards of life are relatively high, people feel they can make an impact, they have rights etc. People don't want to give that up, they don't want to see war on their home patch, it's that simple. A dictator needs huge levels of support, you can't create an uprising with a few hundred people on your side because you'll have several million other people standing in your way... Imagine what would happen if the BNP tried to take power in Britain, they're able to play on the fears of a poorly educated few, but those fears are often related to poverty (immigrants taking our jobs etc) and when they try and operate on a larger scale they just come up against a wall of people who don't buy their shit.

Well many people have a pretty idolised view of the society we live All I would say we have now is political apathy due to a decent standard of living. As for things like separation of power they simply mean nothing anymore, we have little real political choice as neo-con and neo-lib are hardly all that different.

I would like to know what would happen to our equilibrium if the standard of living took a sharp drop.

If you look at how most wars get stirred up over time its not easy but those with the intent usually do suceed even it it takes years

 

[xenon]

Funny some guy did that just down the road and in the end he got 2 years




Maybe in a select community of educated types but in the real world I doubt it. Also dictators arn't necessarily the brains of operation, but if you look at most them they had the backing of small group of academic and financial elite.

Under the sort of structure being talked about, there would be no elite in that sence. Of course you'd have a few megalomaniacs. Who in a revolutionary transition could pose a real threat, such as you suggest. Which is one reason why personally I'm not in favour of overthrowing Capitlism in that manner. Rather remove structures from the bottom and replace with alternative models. Like playing Gengar from the bottom up but replacing the bricks with your own. Leaving that crap annalgey...

If once a widespread anarchist society has formed. Power would be diffuce. Your wouldbe dictator might have access to weaponry, some specialist knowledge, maybe a strategic resource. But if he can't carry the will of millions who'd have access to resources and knowledge of their own, he has nothing to form a hirearchie with. Consequently will just be dealt with as a violent nuisance. Look at the social conditions of states where dictators arise and where they don't.

 

[xenon]

Well what Cid's more articulately said basically.

 

[Cid]

Well many people have a pretty idolised view of the society we live All I would say we have now is political apathy due to a decent standard of living. As for things like separation of power they simply mean nothing anymore, we have little real political choice as neo-con and neo-lib are hardly all that different.

Nah, you're missing my point again; I'm not really suggesting anything more than that... Except that you do have unions, popular opinion does have an effect (often negative mind you) and, if the govt really starts ramping up the shit, people take to the streets and they have to reign back in case their mandate goes.

I would like to know what would happen to our equilibrium if the standard of living took a sharp drop.

Well that's precisely my point, see Iceland's government or the poll tax riots.

If you look at how most wars get stirred up over time its not easy but those with the intent usually do suceed even it it takes years

No, they really don't, not unless you're operating with a vastly superior force and technology (or if you're in a very unstable region)... Even then they can totally fail against a determined and motivated populace (Vietnam).

 

[kyser_soze]

Even then they can totally fail against a determined and motivated populace (Vietnam).

The US failure in Vietnam was as much about the US losing from politics and bad strategy as it was the NVA/VC winning.

I think the main problem is that bhamgeezer is a derterminist with an outlook that mixes modern and pre-modern thinking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The US failure in Vietnam was as much about the US losing from politics and bad strategy as it was the NVA/VC winning.

Not sure I'd agree with that. They were fighting for the wrong side. A huge number of ordinary Veitnamese were against them. How could they have possibly won?

 

[kyser_soze]

Not sure I'd agree with that. They were fighting for the wrong side. A huge number of ordinary Veitnamese were against them. How could they have possibly won?

Wrong thread really, but the US came very close to winning militarily twice, and fucked it both times, and Vietnamese opinion of the US waxed and waned (more waned) as the war progressed.

 

[bhamgeezer]

No, they really don't, not unless you're operating with a vastly superior force and technology (or if you're in a very unstable region)... Even then they can totally fail against a determined and motivated populace (Vietnam).

Depends if you think the aim of war is to end it or simply to stimulate the economy and let everyone know who is boss on a global scale. I think with recent wars their is no intention of winning them in a short period of time.

 

[bhamgeezer]

derterminist

You say it like it was a bad thing oh and I rage at your spelling to!

I don't dismiss pre-modern thinking because I know humans have a habit of ascribing themselves too great an understanding, did you know many greeks believed they had reached the height of human knowledge?

 

[Cid]

Depends if you think the aim of war is to end it or simply to stimulate the economy and let everyone know who is boss on a global scale. I think with recent wars their is no intention of winning them in a short period of time.

That's a totally different kind of war to the kind you're proposing though.

 

[Cid]

You say it like it was a bad thing oh and I rage at your spelling to!

Well I'd say that your interpretation of it probably is.


That should be 'too' incidentally.

I don't dismiss pre-modern thinking because I know humans have a habit of ascribing themselves too great an understanding, did you know many greeks believed they had reached the height of human knowledge?

That doesn't make pre-modern thinking 'right' though does it?

Anyway, lets not get into this discussion again here.

 

[bhamgeezer]

That's a totally different kind of war to the kind you're proposing though.

I am saying that is a major force behind all almost all war, some people want a war for profit. The point I am trying to make is that their are those who will disrupt the status quo just because they can, even when all their needs are met they will still attempt to obtain more influence and control and wealth. If they are smart they will get away with it deceptively how does anarchy deal with those people?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Wrong thread really, but the US came very close to winning militarily twice, and fucked it both times, and Vietnamese opinion of the US waxed and waned (more waned) as the war progressed.

Wrong thread, as you say – but perhaps pertinent to the discussion here at least tangentially:

If the US had won militarily, how likely is it that their victory would have been followed by years of 'insurgency' of the kind seen in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[bhamgeezer]

Well I'd say that your interpretation of it probably is.


That should be 'too' incidentally.



That doesn't make pre-modern thinking 'right' though does it?

Anyway, lets not get into this discussion again here.

I agree pointless debate if you don't find determinism a logical necessity you never will, and if you don't find the knowledge gained from psychology and neuroscience persuasive towards dismissing the previous free will concept then I won't be able to convince you.

As for spelling, mine is terrible I blame a life of using computers and having a spell check fix everything for me. They just didn't beat me enough in my modern education for it to stay with me, never seems an issue mind

 

[kyser_soze]

If they are smart they will get away with it deceptively how does anarchy deal with those people?

You still don't get it. In our society, where power is centralised and concentrated in a few places/persons/instutitions, it's possible for small numbers of influential people to make significant impacts on what happens - at least in a direct-cause/effect kind of way. In an anarchy, because centralised power like this wouldn't exist you couldn't have a few people acting to influence the whole of society. You might get it happen in a community, or even a region, but to gain power and control over a society that is socialised into rejecting arbitrary, hierarchical authority and is schooled in how things 'used to be' would be night on impossible.

How would such a society deal with them when they are 'revealed'? I don't know - their crime would be attempted, or actual, choice theft (read Perdido Street Station for an explanation) because they were seeking to deny others their free choice by imposing themselves and their agenda on the social body. What the society chose to do with this would be up to them. Personally I'd think limited incarcertation coupled with finding out why/how said person had developed a pathological personality.

 

[kyser_soze]

Wrong thread, as you say – but perhaps pertinent to the discussion here at least tangentially:

If the US had won militarily, how likely is it that their victory would have been followed by years of 'insurgency' of the kind seen in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If they'd won in the mid 60s, before they started the mass murder of cilvilians, and insurgency would have failed. The VC weren't exactly angels when they dealt with civilians, especially those who'd received help or were friendly to, the US so there is no guarantee that a communist backed insurgency would have been popular enough to win.

If they'd won militarily post-69, there would have been a long and bloody insurgency.

 

[bhamgeezer]

You still don't get it. In our society, where power is centralised and concentrated in a few places/persons/instutitions, it's possible for small numbers of influential people to make significant impacts on what happens - at least in a direct-cause/effect kind of way. In an anarchy, because centralised power like this wouldn't exist you couldn't have a few people acting to influence the whole of society. You might get it happen in a community, or even a region, but to gain power and control over a society that is socialised into rejecting arbitrary, hierarchical authority and is schooled in how things 'used to be' would be night on impossible.

How would such a society deal with them when they are 'revealed'? I don't know - their crime would be attempted, or actual, choice theft (read Perdido Street Station for an explanation) because they were seeking to deny others their free choice by imposing themselves and their agenda on the social body. What the society chose to do with this would be up to them. Personally I'd think limited incarcertation coupled with finding out why/how said person had developed a pathological personality.

Take away the centralised power and someone will centralise it again even if everyone hates centralised power they will not have a choice if they want to not die. Power isn't just "established" power, power can come from a secret organisation and violence. Unless people police each other and discover this kind of behaviour before it is too late what is to stop those individuals.

Its not impossible, its very easy, people don't follow you because you are the "authority", they follow you because of the stake you can offer them in the future you intend to create. If you pull it off you become the authority. Nobody is acting because they are conditioned into believing you are acting in their best interests, they are either doing it out of self-interest or fear.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If they'd won in the mid 60s, before they started the mass murder of cilvilians, and insurgency would have failed. The VC weren't exactly angels when they dealt with civilians, especially those who'd received help or were friendly to, the US so there is no guarantee that a communist backed insurgency would have been popular enough to win.

If they'd won militarily post-69, there would have been a long and bloody insurgency.

Ta – that sounds about right.

 

[kyser_soze]

Take away the centralised power and someone will centralise it again even if everyone hates centralised power they will not have a choice if they want to not die. Power isn't just "established" power, power can come from a secret organisation and violence. Unless people police each other and discover this kind of behaviour before it is too late what is to stop those individuals.

Its not impossible, its very easy, people don't follow you because you are the "authority", they follow you because of the stake you can offer them in the future you intend to create. If you pull it off you become the authority. Nobody is acting because they are conditioned into believing you are acting in their best interests, they are either doing it out of self-interest or fear.

Bold 1: Why will power inevitably recentralise itself? How would these society wide usupers ever get anywhere?

Bold 2: That's kind of the point of anarchism really - eveyrone looking out for everyone else; which is another reason your theoretical hierarchs would find it difficult to ever gain a foothold.

Bold 3: But what can someone offer people who live in an anarchy? What possible 'stake' could they offer people who reject hierarchy, in a hierarchy?

Your thinking about what an anarchist society would be like is simply 'what would our society be like without any rules?', not 'what would a society that has a completely different set of social values be like? Until you engage on that point, there's no point in discussing this.

I agree pointless debate if you don't find determinism a logical necessity you never will, and if you don't find the knowledge gained from psychology and neuroscience persuasive towards dismissing the previous free will concept then I won't be able to convince you.

The knowledge I've gained from psychology and neuroscience lead me to the opposite conclusion.

 

[newbie]

they are either doing it out of self-interest or fear.

I tend to agree, and while there are plenty of clear examples where collective interest trumps pure self interest, there are equally clear cases where an individual can benefit with little or no impact on wider society but clear detriment to another individual. That's part of what a legal system is all about, determining and enforcing the boundaries that society at large expects an individual to conform to (criminal) and settling disputes between individuals (civil).

Maybe I'm over-habituated to current society but I have real problems imagining any sort of civilised society which doesn't have a transparent, codified legal system.