This can be seen internationally as well. If countries misbehave, you start with sanctions and embargos (shunning/shaming). If they continue to misbehave, then violence is usually next. But this is all done without a coercive world government, only a voluntary UN etc.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yeah without organized laws and governments, agents must manage some other way. But I still don't get why the non-governmental way - even on the global scale - is better.
Anarchist believe it's better because it's more moral. It's more moral because it's voluntary (free of physical coercion). All forms of government ultimately derive their power from implicit or explicit threats of violence, which is understandably offensive to many.
Thank you! I certainly get the impulse to avoid coercion. But could you explain a little more? I still don't understand how the kind of sanctions imposed by whatever cultural group in power in the Rifkin scenario aren't also implicit / explicit threats of violence. Say their initial shaming etc don't work - will they not resort to violence, or at least suggest they would, in order to ensure compliance? (If shaming / non-violent sanctions always worked, there would no longer be need for implicit threats of violence in a government, either.)