I was listening to the bitcoin uncensored podcast and I they mentioned a very interesting idea which I want to explore a bit further. The idea was that a system based on full anarchy can never truly exist because someone will always take the lead as a governing body if there is no situation that dictates it and to an extent I do agree. I think the most important distinction is how you personally define anarchy. If you define it as non existence of a traditional government then I do believe that can be achieved, but if you define it simply just as the remove of a governing body, someone who makes rules , then I would have to say its impossible.
Before I get into why I think it is impossible, I want to ask what the difference between a rule and a law is, because governing bodies that are not governments create rules that need to be followed with negative consequences so essentially they are no different than a law. The laws our government make for us to follow and the rules that governing bodies in the absence of government make are essentially the same. Follow or else there will be consequences, with most real life cases leaning heavily toward much severe, often violent punishments that come with the breaking of rules vs the breaking of law.
What do I mean by governing bodies versus government ? Traditional government needs no explanation, we live under it, interact with it and abide by it every day of our lives. The real interesting thing that happens is the governing bodies that take over when the lack of government is apparent. One of the biggest cases you can talk about is how in areas that the police force refuses to enter or engage with, gangs and the mafia take over as a governing body. They may not have all the tricks a modern government has, but they do mandate a strict set of guidelines that must be followed or else negative consequences will occur.
In a traditional government you pay taxes and you expect the police force to protect your business, in the non traditional mob style of government you pay “protection” money and anyone who deals with your business knows that it is under their protection. Failure to do so in the first case will be jail time, while in the second case, the loss of your store or kneecaps. You as the store owner will abide by the rules of the stronger governing forces rather than the other one. To you as a store owner in the hood, paying protection money is much more important than your taxes, when the government barely acknowledges your stores existence.
Historically we saw some sort of governing body take over as well with tribes. If we look at the most recent tribes in Africa or some islands in the pacific, there is still a hierarchy that creates rules people must abide by. Tribes have a strict view on people pulling their own weight and performing a job that needs to be done or fears the removal from the tribe which in many places equals death. In fact there are some tribes that will even kill you if you aren’t pulling your weight at all, but they are the extremes. The fact is that when a government does not put humans into a hierarchy themselves, human beings tend to establish types of governing bodies by themselves as a defense mechanism for protection. We are tribal animals after all and most of us prefer not to be alone so we move towards governing bodies that assign us a place to be.
There really is not a good post apocalyptic reference we can use to refer to when thinking about the possibilities of self government in the real world, but I would assume that it would look similar to what we have had with tribes in the past or mafia government today. I would imagine many would fall into place and abide by the de facto governing powers that would arise in a situation to provide security while also getting back something in return.
Ultimately I think that the idea of a true anarchy, if we define anarchy as a complete exit from any governing body, is impossible. Maybe in the future I will be proven wrong, but it seems almost human nature for a governing body of some sort to step in while one is lacking and for human beings to let it happen out of fear of security. Governing bodies might not ultimately provide much benefit, but they will still try and move in on a situation regardless. I think it is interesting to look at what happened when ISIS took over certain areas and established new laws and unrecognized the ones formally in power. Out of fear for their lives or just being in agreement with the new power, people mostly fell into place. In my opinion this will happen almost every time.
-Calaber24p
Well, the first thing that has to go is government. (Government = mind control)
Once that happens, and we move to a protectorate, or something, then we can talk about anarchy.
Two things that need to come first is that everyone needs to learn to defend themselves. How many movies do we see where the gunman protects the village. In The Magnificent Seven it should have been the bandits ride towards town, the town, all equipped with long guns, shoots them all dead. However, we still look for someone to protect us. And we bend knee to anyone who says they will (even if they don't).
Next piece is learning to negotiate. We do not learn to communicate; what we learn is a form of verbal aggression. We assume the win-loss narrative, and thus, we are on the defensive, or the attack at the beginning of any negotiation. With a win-win mentality, you are forthright and open. You know that your needs are important, and that there needs are important.
I know many people who, if there was anarchy tomorrow, wouldn't change a thing. And then there are those who will whine and whimper asking someone to please take away the responsibility.
Responsibility is distributed in a social space, as we are limited in capacity as individuals to cover all angles, especially when the long-term is involved. With money being the most central abstract representation of belief / currency / social value, I'd say there's a solution to a good middle ground with the advent of blockchains. Total anarchy is possible within an individual, but by definition.. impossible in a social context, which is what society is about.
"However, we still look for someone to protect us. And we bend knee to anyone who says they will (even if they don't)".
Sad but true. Because we don;t have a role model of a totally self-governing society (though anyone can remember the cases where individuals unite to solve problems by themselves). Once such society evolves and survives, people will slowly start thinking otherwise. But I don't know what should happen to make this possible.
excellent view, great post that you have posted, valuable information, thanks for sharing congratulations sir @ calaber24p
Great post, learned to think differently today.
Hi @calaber24p
Great post and I agree with you view 100%
I couldn't agree more. I think that as a philosophy, anarchy is bulletproof. In-practice, I don't think it's possible because people will always subvert other people. I've often said it weren't the government collecting taxes, it would be the mafia, and here in the USA we don't have it too bad. Runaway spending is definitely a problem, and I think moving towards a libertarian society is preferable to a more authoritarian society, so we still have work to do; but our constitution provides us with some great liberties that are seldom seen honored by governments of other nations. To me, if you have something as good as the government we have (but FAR from perfect), we should work on changing it rather than doing away it.
Even more importantly, I think that it is too late in the game for anarchy. Anarchy might have worked several thousand years ago, when societies were localized and didn't have technologies capable of wiping out the entire species at the push of a button, but now that we are where we are technologically, we have to maintain our national defense at the level it is at now. Anarchy would ONLY work if every single person in the world stood up and said "enough." But that's never going to happen, even worse, the only way you could coordinate such an event would be using technology. Well, the only people that would get the message are people living in free enough societies that the government allows freedom of speech. Problem is, then you're only getting rid of the most lenient governments, which doesn't make much sense to me. Here in America, you're free to spout how much you hate the government and unless you're calling for direct threats of violence, you can do it legally. In China, if you try the same thing you will likely be punished and perhaps even executed. Such a message would never make it to citizens of those societies. These are a few reasons why I agree with what you are saying.
Cheers
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal