We do live in an anarchist world

[Elwar]

When you are born you can do whatever you want. When you leave your home at 18 you can do whatever you want. Right now you can do whatever you want.

If you leave your home at 18 years old and go decide you want to celebrate with a glass of champagne in the park. You grab a bottle from home and head down to the park. You pop the cork and sit there enjoying your freedom from the parents.

Then some dude comes up and tells you he does not like you drinking.

At that point you face a choice. Are you more powerful than that dude? Can you continue drinking without him interfering? You may be bigger so you stand up to him telling him that you are a free person that can do whatever he wants. The dude disagrees and pulls a gun. In this anarchist world, survival of the fittest prevails. You are subject to that person's whim because he has more power than you do. He can now use his gun to take you prisoner for as long as he and his friends think is right in their own eyes.

What if you had a gun too? If he pulled a gun you could have pulled one too, perhaps shot him if neccessary. But then he has a bunch of buddies with guns too, and a lot of equipment to come track you down and take you to a cage and hold you there as long as he and his friends think is right in their own eyes.

What if you and your buddies had more guns and equipment than them? Then their buddies would call other buddies who have tanks and helicopters and jets and missiles...

So, what if you had a lot of buddies with tanks and helicopters and jets and missiles...once it was established that interfering with you was not worth all of the lives and fighting, then...then you could sit there and drink your champagne freely.

So when it comes down to it...we are all free. It is just that there are people out there that hold more power than us that will always have control over our lives unless we are more powerful than them. That is an anarchist society.

[mprep]

Man, my mind is blown. I actually never thought of it that way.

[kokjo]

why 18?

[ildubbioso]

there is anarchy where no law exists, and there is anarcocapitalism, with the natural law.

Who is the owner of the park?

a) If the owner allows people to drink then everything is fine and nobody can ask you to stop.
b) If the owner doesn't want people to drink "some dude" goes to the park-police and ask them to stop you from drinking.


Edit: I misunderstood the OP  

[FCTaiChi]

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines lately Elwar.  People talk about the free market, but this is the free market.  The regulations were tacitly chosen.  Now the general public has been tricked into many silly things that we never would have given permission to, but at the same point there is talk about responsibility.  Who let it get this way?  Everyone... and everyone has to take responsibility for that.

Great rant Elwar!

[Mike Christ]

Valid points, Elwar.  We're all anarchists until the state gets involved.  Once the state leaves us alone, we proceed to be anarchists again.  I tell you, the hardest thing to explain to someone is that society won't collapse into utter turmoil once the state disappears (you know, as seen in the movies); in fact, life would continue as it always has, just without state hindrance.

[Elwar]

why 18?

Just an example. You could go out into the world as soon as you can walk and the example still applies but starting with a 2 year old that can push you down to older kids up to your parents, the police, military, etc...

[myrkul]

So, basically, the State is a school-yard bully, writ large?

[Elwar]

So, basically, the State is a school-yard bully, writ large?

Pretty much...and the commercials and advice that I see about just ignoring bullies does not seem like it would work.

[Roger_Murdock]

So if you self-describe as an anarchist, the good news is that we're already living in an anarchist society! Of course, the bad news is that ... we're already living in an anarchist society.

[FCTaiChi]

So if you self-describe as an anarchist, the good news is that we're already living in an anarchist society! Of course, the bad news is that ... we're already living in an anarchist society.

lol

[Elwar]

I guess using the word "society" is poor wording. We are born into an anarchist world...but we join an "archist" society once we give in to following the rules of the archy because of their power.

[Elwar]

I believe the key thing in thinking about this is that if we get rid of government, it will create a vaccuum to be filled by more centralized power to control our lives.

What needs to happen is to do like Bitcoin and create a decentralized alternative first.

Voluntarism/Agorism may be such an answer.

[bitzox]

So, basically, the State is a school-yard bully, writ large?

The school-yard bully is the military industrial complex/police, the state is the corrupt principal who lets him get away with whatever he wants and tries, but usually fails, to manipulate him to his own ends.

[aigeezer]

Interesting theme. On first reading it rang untrue for me because in my country it is illegal to drink in a park so the State immediately became an issue in the narrative.

Several readings later, I found myself reflecting on the non-State programming we all face the moment we are sentient. Everything from potty training to "what will the neighbours think?". Long before the State intrudes with overt manipulations like pledges of allegiance, invisible but very real rules are laid down by parents, peers and casual contacts. As religious zealots say, "get them while they're young."

"The child is father to the man."

So... is it possible to be free at birth after all? Someone will pick you up and move you about, at the very least. By the time you are old enough to assert your independent wants, say "the terrible twos", you will be thwarted, and you will give in only because of the adult power that thwarts you.

In adult life, the State is certainly the bully most to be feared most of the time by most people, but... I don't see a clear point of transition in life - the "-archy" asserts itself at birth, although not usually in the form of the State.

I'm starting to think there are "good -archy" components, such as potty training or driving on only one side of the road, but that in attempting to enumerate them we would all disagree, eventually leading to some version of where we are now - a myriad of laws that nobody much likes.

 

[TheGovernedSelf]

In adult life, the State is certainly the bully most to be feared most of the time by most people, but... I don't see a clear point of transition in life - the "-archy" asserts itself at birth, although not usually in the form of the State.

I'm starting to think there are "good -archy" components, such as potty training or driving on only one side of the road, but that in attempting to enumerate them we would all disagree, eventually leading to some version of where we are now - a myriad of laws that nobody much likes.

I think the dividing line is this:

A good rule or law assists and streamlines society. Ignoring such a rule causes chaos and damage to the community. (Seat belts, driving on the right side of the road, simple contract law, industry standards)

A bad rule or law oppresses and consolidates control into certain groups or institutions. Society would function better if it ceased to exist. (monopoly, barriers to market entry, excessive taxation, back-room committees, frivolous fines, the war on drugs, militarization of police)

[KornShell]

Morris and Linda Tannehill give a wonderful treatment of this in "The Market For Liberty", available as an e-book from Laissez Faire Books: lfb.org

[molecular]

I believe the key thing in thinking about this is that if we get rid of government, it will create a vaccuum to be filled by more centralized power to control our lives.

What needs to happen is to do like Bitcoin and create a decentralized alternative first.

Voluntarism/Agorism may be such an answer.

I think I can agree with that.

Reading your OP I couldn't help but think you're understanding "anarchy" differntly than I am. For me it doesn't mean "no rules, no order, chaos". It just means "no state, no ruler". There can still be order and rules. Rules that are our own because we voluntarily agree to use them.

[Elwar]

I believe the key thing in thinking about this is that if we get rid of government, it will create a vaccuum to be filled by more centralized power to control our lives.

What needs to happen is to do like Bitcoin and create a decentralized alternative first.

Voluntarism/Agorism may be such an answer.

I think I can agree with that.

Reading your OP I couldn't help but think you're understanding "anarchy" differntly than I am. For me it doesn't mean "no rules, no order, chaos". It just means "no state, no ruler". There can still be order and rules. Rules that are our own because we voluntarily agree to use them.

Well archy means: a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,”.

So anarchy would be without rule or government. Basically nobody ruling over you. Chaos implies confusion or disorder. That is not what I am saying would happen without people being ruled. The only chaos would be from the perception of someone who wishes to rule people.

But there can be order without being ruled. You play a game of pool and though there are rules, nobody is ruling over the players. The rules are agreed upon by the two players beforehand and followed.

[aigeezer]

I believe the key thing in thinking about this is that if we get rid of government, it will create a vaccuum to be filled by more centralized power to control our lives.

What needs to happen is to do like Bitcoin and create a decentralized alternative first.

Voluntarism/Agorism may be such an answer.

I think I can agree with that.

Reading your OP I couldn't help but think you're understanding "anarchy" differntly than I am. For me it doesn't mean "no rules, no order, chaos". It just means "no state, no ruler". There can still be order and rules. Rules that are our own because we voluntarily agree to use them.

Well archy means: a combining form meaning “rule,” “government,”.

So anarchy would be without rule or government. Basically nobody ruling over you. Chaos implies confusion or disorder. That is not what I am saying would happen without people being ruled. The only chaos would be from the perception of someone who wishes to rule people.

But there can be order without being ruled. You play a game of pool and though there are rules, nobody is ruling over the players. The rules are agreed upon by the two players beforehand and followed.

Subliminal message about pools.   

Your pool example is persuasive, but I find in everyday life people always seem to be squabbling about what the rules of the moment mean - the recent BFL bet for charity being a salient example. Something else must be going on between situations where people don't squabble about rule interpretations and other situations where they do. For reasons I don't understand, the same person might be placid about waiting for a red light to change (costing a minute of time), but belligerent about getting a parking ticket (costing a few dollars in most places), and of course when people debate "rule of law" issues all hell breaks loose. Is it a stakes thing, skin in the game? I dunno.