How long would it take for Anarchy to start working?

[deisik]

I never suggested the forceful and instantaneous removal of the government. I support growing alternatives from the bottom up - like Bitcoin. Hopefully one day there will arise better ways of doing things than the current system.

I'm not accusing you of provoking disobedience or organizing acts of resistance... God forbid!

[beetcoin]

i just had a long discussion with an anarchist last night.. and i still don't quite understand his ideology. i think i've narrowed it down to him thinking that government is the root of all problems. i, on the other hand, think that government is only part of the problem. the main issue is the nature of man.

The basic problem as I see it is that governments are no escape from the nature of man.  They will not somehow lift us up and out of what we are.

Taking a line from the Declaration of Independence - "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" - we see an attempt to deal with the problem of the nature of man.  Basically, we have rights, and people want to infringe them.  Great idea: establishing an institution to defend against such threats.  So for example if you become a threat to my rights, I have the right to defend myself, and my neighbor and I have the right to band together against you.

by decentralizing government, i don't see how this makes the situation any better.

Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights.  This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc.  Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want.  And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive.  It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede.  Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers.  The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

if you banded with a group to take my rights away, and i have 3 guns to go against your 1,000 strong.. then i'll only fall under your power. if i group up with someone else, and i only have 2 hands and 3 guns to offer, then i won't be joining forces on my own terms, but instead i'd be at the whim of the guy who has more influence.

so that means i have only a few choices as an individual:

1) allow the aggressor to dominate me in every way (especially economically).
2) sell myself to another powerful group, which would dominate me since i'd only be 1 strong.. i'd be agreeing to their terms if i wanted protection from them.
3) run away and give up my possessions

What you just posted is a great argument against monopoly governments.  Decentralization makes the threat you are describing smaller.

Right now we are all facing basically only options 1 and 3 in response to oppression.  If everybody suddenly faced option 2, then the oppressing institution would suddenly lose a lot of support and become a lot smaller - making it easier to defend against.

I do not like the gangsters who run my state government.  But I would love to have them actually stand up and defend me against the gangsters who run my federal government.  That would be a valuable service they could perform for me, and I have a better chance of defending myself against the local state gangsters than the powerful Washington gangsters.  Then my city or county gangsters could defend me against the state gangsters, and my local neighborhood could perhaps stand up to the city gangsters.  This would be fantastic for freedom and prosperity!  It wouldn't solve all of the world's ills, but it would certainly give us a fighting chance that we do not have now.

i am not for centralized governments. i know what the problem is, i just don't pretend that i have the answer.

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society. by saying "anarchy is like or similar to government" it doesn't prove that it's a better option or even a solution. it's just a different way of doing things.

government is and will always be corrupt, but it's the people in government that are causing it.. not government itself.

[crumbs]

...
Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights.  This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc.  Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want.  And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive.  It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede.  Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers.  The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

I agree with pretty much everything you say until you get to secession.  It's a nice thought, but other than granting exit visas (i'm sure that's not what you mean), there are just no practical ways to implement that without wrecking the whole system.
If i'm understanding you correctly, there would emerge multiple city-states & even house-states in the middle of a country state?  How would that work?
(maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "secede")

[deisik]

Let's not forget, that while we may disagree on what should replace this system/how we should improve it, I think we can agree that the way it is behaving at the moment is detrimental to most people and the biosphere - alternatives should be considered and solutions searched for.

If you want my view on this, I think that at any moment throughout human history this system (this here actually refers to different such systems for obvious reasons) has been behaving in a way that was detrimental to some and at times even to most people. There's no doubt about this. Although it is never too early to search for alternatives and solutions, today is not really the worst day...

[Walter Rothbard]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

[Walter Rothbard]

...
Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights.  This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc.  Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want.  And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive.  It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede.  Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers.  The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

I agree with pretty much everything you say until you get to secession.  It's a nice thought, but other than granting exit visas (i'm sure that's not what you mean), there are just no practical ways to implement that without wrecking the whole system.
If i'm understanding you correctly, there would emerge multiple city-states & even house-states in the middle of a country state?  How would that work?
(maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "secede")

It would work just fine, as long as people respect rights, and as long as no central institution stops people from defending their rights.

In the case of the "house state," how would that not work?  They would be free to go about their business - free to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (another quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence).  There is no reason that any other state should compel them to be members/subjects/"citizens".

The basic question is - can you and those who want to cooperate with you defend your rights without compelling others to support your cause?  Or must you use force - must you compel participation and support?  My contention is that when you start compelling participation, you become the very problem you are supposedly trying to fight against: you become rights violators.

[beetcoin]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

i'm not sure how that changes things. if you are suggesting that the entire world should transition to anarchist systems, which we have no example of, then there would absolutely be power vaccums, which would lead to war. i'm sorry, but that's just the nature of man... to dominate the weaker.

i do believe most people prefer to peacefully keep to themselves - but they are the ones who are eventually dominated by the few who try to seize the spoils.

[Walter Rothbard]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

i'm not sure how that changes things. if you are suggesting that the entire world should transition to anarchist systems, which we have no example of, then there would absolutely be power vaccums, which would lead to war.

Is there some reason people can't defend themselves against oppressors without having to oppress others to do it?

[deisik]

I see everyone talking about states and governments and their wrongdoings but what are you going to do with multilevel multinational corporations? Are they a secondary goal or not a target at all? Could it be that we're all missing the villain of the piece?

[Hawker]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

i'm not sure how that changes things. if you are suggesting that the entire world should transition to anarchist systems, which we have no example of, then there would absolutely be power vaccums, which would lead to war.

Is there some reason people can't defend themselves against oppressors without having to oppress others to do it?

Yes - war requires cash so to win, you have to use force to raise the cash.  Voluntary donations are OK but the real money is in protection rackets and kidnapping.  Or at least that's how it worked in Ireland when I was growing up.  From what I see in places like Syria and Iraq, nothing has changed.

[crumbs]

...
Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights.  This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc.  Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want.  And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive.  It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede.  Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers.  The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

I agree with pretty much everything you say until you get to secession.  It's a nice thought, but other than granting exit visas (i'm sure that's not what you mean), there are just no practical ways to implement that without wrecking the whole system.
If i'm understanding you correctly, there would emerge multiple city-states & even house-states in the middle of a country state?  How would that work?
(maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "secede")

It would work just fine, as long as people respect rights, and as long as no central institution stops people from defending their rights.

In the case of the "house state," how would that not work?  They would be free to go about their business - free to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (another quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence).  There is no reason that any other state should compel them to be members/subjects/"citizens".

The basic question is - can you and those who want to cooperate with you defend your rights without compelling others to support your cause?  Or must you use force - must you compel participation and support?  My contention is that when you start compelling participation, you become the very problem you are supposedly trying to fight against: you become rights violators.

I'll start off with a few house-state problems:
1. Roads.  The roads are built and maintained by nation-states, and house-states will, by necessity, use them.  Since the house-state doesn't pay taxes to the country-state, the country-state now has to devise an awkward & costly toll system.  And an enforcement system, different from an existing enforcement system, to enforce the laws regarding "home-staters."  For instance, i think i make an awesome drunk driver, and as a free individual, i don't wish to be penalized for simply being a potential road hazard.  As long as i don't do any actual harm, i should be free to do as i choose, amiright?  Then a State Thug pulls me over  & wants to penalize me.  The problems start.

You can see endless similar problems sprouting up.  The reason large societies are able to function at all is the universality of standards.  English, for instance, is far from being an ideal language. But if everyone talked in their own, custom tongue, communication would be impossible.

Sorry for veering of on seemingly disjointed tangents, but i see so many problems.  Sort of like granting every cell in your body complete autonomy, and expecting to stay alive.  And even get better for it

[beetcoin]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

i'm not sure how that changes things. if you are suggesting that the entire world should transition to anarchist systems, which we have no example of, then there would absolutely be power vaccums, which would lead to war.

Is there some reason people can't defend themselves against oppressors without having to oppress others to do it?

Yes - war requires cash so to win, you have to use force to raise the cash.  Voluntary donations are OK but the real money is in protection rackets and kidnapping.  Or at least that's how it worked in Ireland when I was growing up.  From what I see in places like Syria and Iraq, nothing has changed.

it's moreso resources than cash, but i overall agree. you need at least some sort of competitive advantage to beat someone, and resources are a main component of that.

I'll start off with a few house-state problems:
1. Roads.  The roads are built and maintained by nation-states, and house-states will, by necessity, use them.  Since the house-state doesn't pay taxes to the country-state, the country-state now has to devise an awkward & costly toll system.  And an enforcement system, different from an existing enforcement system, to enforce the laws regarding "home-staters."  For instance, i think i make an awesome drunk driver, and as a free individual, i don't wish to be penalized for simply being a potential road hazard.  As long as i don't do any actual harm, i should be free to do as i choose, amiright?  Then a State Thug pulls me over  & wants to penalize me.  The problems start.

You can see endless similar problems sprouting up.  The reason large societies are able to function at all is the universality of standards.  English, for instance, is far from being an ideal language. But if everyone talked in their own, custom tongue, communication would be impossible.

Sorry for veering of on seemingly disjointed tangents, but i see so many problems.  Sort of like granting every cell in your body complete autonomy, and expecting to stay alive.  And even get better for it

that's the problem.. who will invest in infrastructure? the one who does that will have all the power because they control access to trade. if say i am a large supplier of apples.. all i'd need to do is provide some money and maybe allegiance to whoever the fuck owns the roads, and they will ensure my transporter will be safely escorted. that creates an advantage for me over my competitors. i will gain more money and power, and continue the process until i'm filthy rich and everyone else is poor. they are then economically disarmed.

let me reiterate.. herein lies my point: government is a problem, but the nature of man is THE problem. if you remove government, you still have the nature of man.. which is to dominate others.

[Kiki112]

what you say doesn't change the fact that there'd be more civil wars/fighting in an anarchistic society.

I don't believe this would be the case.  Most of the wars of the past century, at least, would have been eliminated if the subjects could secede.  One reason I am pro-anarchy is that I am anti-war.

i'm not sure how that changes things. if you are suggesting that the entire world should transition to anarchist systems, which we have no example of, then there would absolutely be power vaccums, which would lead to war.

Is there some reason people can't defend themselves against oppressors without having to oppress others to do it?

Yes - war requires cash so to win, you have to use force to raise the cash.  Voluntary donations are OK but the real money is in protection rackets and kidnapping.  Or at least that's how it worked in Ireland when I was growing up.  From what I see in places like Syria and Iraq, nothing has changed.

it's moreso resources than cash, but i overall agree. you need at least some sort of competitive advantage to beat someone, and resources are a main component of that.

I'll start off with a few house-state problems:
1. Roads.  The roads are built and maintained by nation-states, and house-states will, by necessity, use them.  Since the house-state doesn't pay taxes to the country-state, the country-state now has to devise an awkward & costly toll system.  And an enforcement system, different from an existing enforcement system, to enforce the laws regarding "home-staters."  For instance, i think i make an awesome drunk driver, and as a free individual, i don't wish to be penalized for simply being a potential road hazard.  As long as i don't do any actual harm, i should be free to do as i choose, amiright?  Then a State Thug pulls me over  & wants to penalize me.  The problems start.

You can see endless similar problems sprouting up.  The reason large societies are able to function at all is the universality of standards.  English, for instance, is far from being an ideal language. But if everyone talked in their own, custom tongue, communication would be impossible.

Sorry for veering of on seemingly disjointed tangents, but i see so many problems.  Sort of like granting every cell in your body complete autonomy, and expecting to stay alive.  And even get better for it

that's the problem.. who will invest in infrastructure? the one who does that will have all the power because they control access to trade. if say i am a large supplier of apples.. all i'd need to do is provide some money and maybe allegiance to whoever the fuck owns the roads, and they will ensure my transporter will be safely escorted. that creates an advantage for me over my competitors. i will gain more money and power, and continue the process until i'm filthy rich and everyone else is poor. they are then economically disarmed.

let me reiterate.. herein lies my point: government is a problem, but the nature of man is THE problem. if you remove government, you still have the nature of man.. which is to dominate others.

simple solution
don't remove the goverment, change it

altough not as simple as it may seem 

[beetcoin]

simple solution
don't remove the goverment, change it

altough not as simple as it may seem  

yeah, solution is simple in theory but impossible by practice. that's the only way things will work, and it's impossible to get everyone to play by fair rules.

i brought my previous point up to an anarchist and he responded with "give everyone guns, they will protect themselves... and all incentive to break rules will dissolve" sorry, but that kind of thinking just doesn't fit the bill for me - it's just too convenient.

oh yeah, he also told me that there should be nonprofit/donators to fund infrastructure because people are just inherently good... wtf? i really do try to understand the anarchistic view on things, but none of it makes sense to me. it's just too extreme and relies too much on idealism.

[Biomech]

i just had a long discussion with an anarchist last night.. and i still don't quite understand his ideology. i think i've narrowed it down to him thinking that government is the root of all problems. i, on the other hand, think that government is only part of the problem. the main issue is the nature of man. if you set rules, many people will play by them.. but many other people will not - and those are the ones who are rewarded. by decentralizing government, i don't see how this makes the situation any better.

I could go on at great length on this subject.

First off, I will say that anarchy on a grand scale was probably impossible prior to the existence of the internet. (For the record, the government did NOT invent the internet, but they did finance the development of the backbone structure {DARPANET))

The problem with an anarchic worldview prior to the 'net was speed of communication. That problem no longer exists. The largest part of our lives are anarchic to begin with, but that too is something of a digression.

Why would decentralized government be better?

First off, it's not an anarchic principle, but it is related. What you posit is usually called "minarchy", and it is better because it eliminates a huge amount of power being concentrated in few hands. That's the short version.

A better idea of it would be this. In a small to medium community, it is likely that those governing, however they got their power, would know most if not all of the people they govern. This takes away the depersonalization that allows massive wars, as all but the most callous do not send people they know off to die for money. (all wars are economic at root. Again, something that requires a great deal of elucidation. Don't take my word for it, just accept that I view it as axiomatic for the nonce). This lack of depersonalization means that they are far more likely to be responsive the needs and wants of the governed than a monolithic central government in which the "people" are at best an abstract, and at worst (most cases) viewed as a disposable resource.

Anarchy takes this a step further, positing that an individual will act in their own interest, and that it is in their own interest to not piss off their neighbors constantly, nor particularly to aggress against them. Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

Utopia means "no place". I have yet to meet an anarchist who is utopian, even in the sense of Sir Thomas Moore's book. It was far more communist or socialist than anarchic, but that's neither here nor there.

What we instead posit is that men can live among one another, peaceably, with rather minimal rules that are generally agreed upon, and that differing groups with different ideas can go their own way WITHOUT INTERFERENCE so long as they are not forcing anyone else to do as they do. Those with the better ideas will win the day, for the most part, as they will be emulated. Again, communication is key.

It is my considered opinion that most of those opposed to anarchic experiments are not afraid that we will fail, but rather the opposite. Because if we succeed, we demonstrate that humans do not need kings. The ideas will spread.

As for dismantling a government overnight, yes, it would cause chaos. It has, many times. BUT!!! the afflicted regions always recover. Usually pretty quickly. The times of most freedom are those times just after a failure of government, and people spontaneously organize themselves. Some lead, some follow, some go their own way, but they find a way to survive. We are a tough and adaptive species.

I will say that a great many anarchists fall into the "all or nothing" mindset, and that is both foolish and wrong. Those of us who think, rather than just dream, are all about forming small independent communities and experimenting. What works, will be adopted by others. What doesn't will be discarded. Small organizations are significantly more ABLE to do this than large ones. Think how long it takes to turn a supertanker, vs. a skiff. I believe that serious anarchists (I am one) would be content if we could purchase a fairly small area, and divide it amongst the participants and just be left to do our thing. We would trade with the outside world, and amongst ourselves, and we would not bother those of you who wish to be ruled, save to talk about our own deal. The major difference between an anarchist and a statist is that the anarchist does not wish to force his views upon others who believe differently. We only want to try our way unmolested by your force. Belief in the non aggression principle is not universal among us, but it is very widely held. Given the disparate people who are anarchists, this is remarkable. I doubt very much that you would find nearly so widespread a belief in any single axiom among any other group of people. We are not your enemies. We are trying to advance the evolution of human society by peaceable means. It has been done on a small scale more than once, and generally successfully for a time. And unlike coercive governments, anarchists do not go to war to keep their adherents. If you don't like what we do, we invite you to leave us, and we mean it. Most of us will use violence only in self defense or the defense of our family, friends, and neighbors. We will not take your hard earned wealth and give it to those who won't work or use it to kill people in foreign lands. We simply think we have a better way of interacting, and we want to prove it. All that prevents us from trying is the fiat of governments. And even that don't work all the way.

If you want to observe a successful, functioning anarchic society within the United States, look to the rainbow society. I have lived among them. Their life is not the form I would want, but they are successful, and they want technology about as much as I want to be primitive. But they do little harm, nearly none, and they live outside of the mainstream altogether, only interacting with it by choice from time to time. Most people do not understand them, and fear them. I found that they would give you the shirt off their back if they thought it would help you, and expect only that you would do the same for someone else in need. There is no reason their system would not work in a technological society, except that most of you fear it.

[deisik]

Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

So you implicitly suggest that all people share the same principles of life and moral values. It may be true for a small isolated group of people and your idea of ostracism and outlawry may actually work between them. But if you take some larger proportion of population and apply this principle among them you will see tensions arise and eventually you will end up with fractions denying and neglecting each other (if not fighting)...

[niothor]

that's the problem.. who will invest in infrastructure? the one who does that will have all the power because they control access to trade. if say i am a large supplier of apples.. all i'd need to do is provide some money and maybe allegiance to whoever the fuck owns the roads, and they will ensure my transporter will be safely escorted. that creates an advantage for me over my competitors. i will gain more money and power, and continue the process until i'm filthy rich and everyone else is poor. they are then economically disarmed.

let me reiterate.. herein lies my point: government is a problem, but the nature of man is THE problem. if you remove government, you still have the nature of man.. which is to dominate others.

Well , you found the problem why all system/societies will eventually crumble and fail.
This damn ingredient called human is making a mess of everything.

[Biomech]

Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

So you implicitly suggest that all people share the same principles of life and moral values. It may be true for a small isolated group of people and your idea of ostracism and outlawry may actually work between them. But if you take some larger proportion of population and apply this principle among them you will see tensions arise and eventually you will end up with fractions denying and neglecting each other (if not fighting)...

Probably. But if they have their own spaces, like minded people will gather. They may even decide to form coercive governments. But if decentralization is common, and people have learned to be independent, those will be pockets.

Sorry, I've been up for close to two days. I'll revisit this later. It's something I have been thinking about and preaching for nearly 20 years, but right now I can't come up with a cogent response

[crumbs]

Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

So you implicitly suggest that all people share the same principles of life and moral values. It may be true for a small isolated group of people and your idea of ostracism and outlawry may actually work between them. But if you take some larger proportion of population and apply this principle among them you will see tensions arise and eventually you will end up with fractions denying and neglecting each other (if not fighting)...

The emboldened text is a biggie.  It's beyond logic to keep such assumptions, that's why they're always implied rather than stated.  There was a guy who made an entire nation dream of a world without commies, Jews and faggots.  How did man's inborn moral sense, the natural grasp of wrongs and rights, play into this?

What's interesting is the level of abstraction in these debates.  "The Government" is always assumed to be a distinct, immutable entity, separate from the ones being governed.  That allows a for a "bad guy" to point a finger at, but in reality it's a continuum -- from the president to the street sweeper on the government payroll.  The IRS agents also pay taxes -- it's a tangled mess.  There's simply no "other" to kill with fire here.

[Biomech]

Obviously, there would be exceptions, and this is where communication comes in. Ostracism is the preferred method of punishment for most crimes among the majority of anarchists I have encountered, and we are rather extreme about it. You make restitution for your crimes, or you literally do not get to interact with ANYONE. With proper communication, this can spread for a rather large, if not global, distance. It provides a rather strong incentive for someone who has transgressed against his neighbor to settle the issue.

So you implicitly suggest that all people share the same principles of life and moral values. It may be true for a small isolated group of people and your idea of ostracism and outlawry may actually work between them. But if you take some larger proportion of population and apply this principle among them you will see tensions arise and eventually you will end up with fractions denying and neglecting each other (if not fighting)...

The emboldened text is a biggie.  It's beyond logic to keep such assumptions, that's why they're always implied rather than stated.  There was a guy who made an entire nation dream of a world without commies, Jews and faggots.  How did man's inborn moral sense, the natural grasp of wrongs and rights, play into this?

What's interesting is the level of abstraction in these debates.  "The Government" is always assumed to be a distinct, immutable entity, separate from the ones being governed.  That allows a for a "bad guy" to point a finger at, but in reality it's a continuum -- from the president to the street sweeper on the government payroll.  The IRS agents also pay taxes -- it's a tangled mess.  There's simply no "other" to kill with fire here.

Actually, I'm just very tired. I didn't deliberately imply any such thing. As I said above, I'll revisit this when I'm more alert. Probably type something up offline over the next couple days. It's an extremely complex subject.