Legal Anarchy - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By XDU
#15207570
Why is a stateless condition needed for anarchy?

A society which has officials and leaders who believe in might makes right are anarchic just as much. The formality of the State, if anything, is an advantage since it's a confession to how people won't do what's expected of them.

If officials and leaders didn't confess, then the truth of anarchy would lurk instead.

I bring this up because of the pragmatic nature of law enforcement, investigation, and representation in which officials don't do their jobs because the notion of principled duty these days is treated as naive. We live in a world where officials want proof of usefulness before taking action, yet people are abused in the course of living their own useful lives, often before usefulness is achieved. Abuse is motivated by this pursuit of sabotage on purpose to prevent competition.

People need to realize anarchy can still exist even with an official authority around.
By late
#15243508
XDU wrote:

Why is a stateless condition needed for anarchy?




Because, for thousands of years, law has been mostly about order.

It's hard to get more contradictory that legal anarchy..
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15243616
XDU wrote:
Why is a stateless condition needed for anarchy?



Not an anarchist, but not far *from* it, either, so here goes:

The (bourgeois) nation-state serves a *class* function, namely that of 'refereeing' among the various sections of competitive capital, as over patents or other kinds of private 'turf', all the way up to the *international* level, including historical world *wars* over the same.

Suffice it to say these bourgeois nation-states do *not* serve the interests of the working class, indeed they're *antagonistic* to the working class, as evidenced in various ongoing refugee crises, the-wealthy-aren't-killed-by-cops, etc.

The world's working class, once fully in collective control of society's entire social-production, would have no (objective or empirical) *need* for any such international patchwork of various countries, since all coordination could be done on a massively level, proportionate 'co-administration' basis, as I call it, by the workers themselves.

Once all socially-necessary social production is *covered* / fulfilled by the world's collective society, then what else *is* there to-do, really, socially-logistically -- ? (Certainly the existence and upkeep of *nations*, and all other arbitrary, geographic-based 'polities' could be displaced altogether.)


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image



---


XDU wrote:
A society which has officials and leaders who believe in might makes right are anarchic just as much. The formality of the State, if anything, is an advantage since it's a confession to how people won't do what's expected of them.

If officials and leaders didn't confess, then the truth of anarchy would lurk instead.



It sounds like you subscribe to the 'social pact' kind of thinking about politicians / political representatives.

The *problem* with this politics, though, is that it's *cross-class* -- any given geographic population does *not* have material interests in common based on localism / geography. Within any given population there are *workers*, and there are those who *don't have to* work, and can live more or less as they like.



Oscar Wilde 1891

The Soul of Man under Socialism

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions.



https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/



---


XDU wrote:
I bring this up because of the pragmatic nature of law enforcement, investigation, and representation in which officials don't do their jobs because the notion of principled duty these days is treated as naive. We live in a world where officials want proof of usefulness before taking action, yet people are abused in the course of living their own useful lives, often before usefulness is achieved. Abuse is motivated by this pursuit of sabotage on purpose to prevent competition.

People need to realize anarchy can still exist even with an official authority around.



You sound very *defensive* here, exactly like a statist.

In order to defend statism you have to be clear about *whose interests* the given nation-state / bureaucracy is representing.

For comparison, I could validly say that the objective of the capitalist economic system is 'To increase shareholder value', and the *political* complement of that would be the upholding of the 'official authority around'.

In other words these things aren't just drifting-through-space -- there are *clear* interests at-work, for both the *economic* system, and also for the *political* / statist system, complementarily.

That said, sure, anyone can appreciate relatively good civil-society, or equality-under-the-law / civil rights, but then there are built-in *limits* to that paradigm, as with labor strikes, picket lines, use of scabs, bankruptcy, private property, finance, cops, etc., which are more 'controversial', shall-we-say.


[6] Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15243623
XDU wrote:
Abuse is motivated by this pursuit of sabotage on purpose to prevent competition.

People need to realize anarchy can still exist even with an official authority around.



On a *second* look, I'll add that, yes, the social hierarchy (of wealth, class, clout, legality) is a real thing, and people step all over each other in that process. Even though there's *some* foundation of 'order' / official-authority around, such a state / government / institution doesn't automatically confer 'instant static social harmony' everywhere in civil society.

'Abuse', 'sabotage', and 'competition' are all *relative* terms, though, in the context of the marketplace and industry career ladders. From *this* tone of things you're sounding more like 'sour grapes' rather than 'What defines the post-Trump world?'
Is there glory in war?

Depends on the war.

@QatzelOk The killings by poodles seems signific[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

rent-a-crowd :lol:

@Potemkin : One thing that strikes me about Em[…]