"The only thing such a society would lack is people who claim the right to break the law, under the guise of 'government'."
This is where I find the biggest logical problem. You can't say that definitively. There will always be people who break the law. How is it then enforced? Who carries out the sentence of the juries?
Another aspect, in regards to infrastructure, is funding. Where do the funds come from? The majority of people will not likely pay for infrastructure improvements that don't affect them. Impoverished communities that need these improvements will lack the ability to do it themselves. Philanthropy can only go so far, and there is indeed a limit to charitable funds available.
I think, largely, that the fallacy is the same as that of socialism. It relies on people unselfishly seeking the best for society. The problem is that people are not that inherently unselfish, and many people are downright evil. From what I've seen, anarchism does not have a good control for those elements. Thoughts?
By the way, thank you for contribution constructively!
Hi Jared,
There will always be people who break the law, agreed, but under anarchy, no one can claim it's their right to do so. That's the difference. Claiming the right to break the law is the essence of government, and that's what is morally repugnant.
Before we had permanent governments, professional lawyers, and professional politicians, we the people upheld the law. We were the police, the jury and the judge. We organised ourselves into communities with trusted elders, and all the facilities a government could offer. The difference was - there was no coercion.
Funding: the only lawful way to fund any community project is by donation. There's no other way. Coercion is a criminal act. If something can't be funded, then it doesn't happen. People cannot be forced into debt against their will - that's immoral.
I hear what you're saying about philanthropy only going so far - but that is immaterial - the law dictates that coercion is crime. And it's a crime because it only leads to inequality and harm.
People are actually primarily cooperative, not competitive. The truly evil are the latter of course, but they're in the minority. Most babies are born with loving generous spirits, it's only their parents who turn them into lost souls.
People have actually lived without money for the vast majority of history (it's a recent invention) living in cooperative egalitarian communities, where merit confers respect. In many societies the culture was to 'out gift' your neighbors - because generosity was tied to social standing. It was their culture to give. To offer something in return for a gift would be an insult.
This society / cult is an aberration. It's not natural at all...
I don't think any sane anarchist would reject the leadership of a wise elder, unless they were wrong. We don't reject all leadership, only that which is forced on us. I personally would love to have someone to follow, it'd be so much easier, but the world's full of people who can't even lead themselves, so we have to just do it ourselves...
To be fair, having to do it ourselves is how we grow up... And that's why all members of the community should be involved in local justice, and learning the law, so they can learn to be moral and just people.
:)
I understand what you're saying here, but I think it's irrelevant whether a person claims the right to break the law. The important factor is whether they break it or not, the consequences that follow and the mechanisms for preventing deviant behavior; which I don't feel that anarchy addresses sufficiently.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I just don't think people are born with loving generous spirits. Have you ever held a hungry baby? There is nothing loving or generous about it. That being said, I think that is where I philosophically disagree with anarchists. I don't trust that the people in my community are that generous and unselfish. I also don't think that a competitive spirit implies evil.