[PsychoVision]

Hey, everyone. Greetings from Arkansas.

I recently joined the forums so that I could test the validity of my viewpoints through debate.

So lets debate: is anarchy the best system, or is it just Utopian? Please post any points you would like to make so that I can try to counter them.

[hannigaholic]

Anarchy is nothing other than a transitional step on the path back to feudalism, because there will always be somebody messing it up for the rest of us.

[DanDaMan]

Imagine cities and towns without police.
Would you want to live there?

Then there's the anarchist ideal of paid courts.
Do you think the poor of the town will get a fair trial?
Imagine a system where the rich are all protected like OJ Simpson!

There's a reason we do not live in anarchy, today. It's a total failure.

[PsychoVision]

Yes, I do agree that there will always be someone who will take power, but I still think that it is right to strive towards anarchy.

I bet you have probably heard this argument before, but there would be private police, the purpose of which would not be to enforce laws, but to defend the rights of people who's rights get violated. They would not be paid if they didn't do their jobs properly.

As for paid courts, if a person wanted to charge a poor person for a crime, the prosecutor would have to pay for the trial, or else the trial wouldn't happen. The courts would be much better because of the rating system. If a court gets too crappy of a rating, nobody would use that court, and that court would go out of business. But courts would be cheaper, because the judges/arbiters would be competing against each other for customers. And also, there is the system where if you didn't have any money, you could get a coupon for a trial, and the coupon would state how much work you would have to do to pay that coupon off.

Of course, I now see the problem that the two might disagree in their choice of court. How would that work? I will have to think on that for a spell.

I'll have to think about poor people as well. I thought that the poor people would be the responsibility of charities, and should not be collected from people with the threat of violence (taxes.) But if there were no charities, what would help a poor person in a system like this?

[DanDaMan]

I bet you have probably heard this argument before, but there would be private police,

Paid for by whom? The rich that can afford it so their laws exclude the poor?
And if the wealthy decide the police are not doing what they want they can stop paying those policeman and hire ones that think similarly?

You have to have some sort of elected government when your community gets into, I would imagine, the hundreds.

[Caveat Lector]

Anarchy is nothing other than a transitional step on the path back to feudalism, because there will always be somebody messing it up for the rest of us.

I agree. It cannot be rationally denied that quickly and inevitably a single person or group of persons with identical interests will gain power and control of others who are unwilling, also known as a government.

[PsychoVision]

I know that the poor could not afford police protection, but I believe that it is the responsibility of charities to help the poor. Its not right to threaten people with violence to make them pay taxes to supply money to poor people. But police protection would be much cheaper because police forces would be competing against each other.

[Caveat Lector]

Who would pay those charities? It doesn't drive one's self interest unless you're Protestant or Catholic.

[PsychoVision]

Who would pay those charities? It doesn't drive one's self interest unless you're Protestant or Catholic.

So people don't feel the need to run or donate to charities when they are not religious?

[DanDaMan]

So people don't feel the need to run or donate to charities when they are not religious?

In a materialist society free from Heaven and Hell why should you?

[PsychoVision]

In a materialist society free from Heaven and Hell why should you?

I would because I think it is the right thing to do. Some others might do it because they would be remembered for it, and therefore become immortalized, in a sense.

[DanDaMan]

I would because I think it is the right thing to do. Some others might do it because they would be remembered for it, and therefore become immortalized, in a sense.

I think a materialistic society would fail to foster that kind of thinking. In fact, doing something for the immortalization just proves the arrogance and selfishness of motive.
It would not be the society you dream of, IMO.

[sans-culotte]

I think a materialistic society would fail to foster that kind of thinking. In fact, doing something for the immortalization just proves the arrogance and selfishness of motive.

And doing something to seek reward in heaven or fearing punishment in hell is what?

[PsychoVision]

Although the motive is for self glorification, it does work. But it would be a problem if there were nobody like this.

I guess it all boils down to one simple question: Is it right to force someone to pay taxes in order to benefit the poor? What do you guys think?

[DanDaMan]

And doing something to seek reward in heaven or fearing punishment in hell is what?

You have a valid point.
But what you fail to understand is that materialism lacks to goal of entrance into heaven through good deeds in the name of God.

Doing for your own fame/immortalization/statue is not the same.

[sans-culotte]

But what you fail to understand is that materialism lacks to goal of entrance into heaven through good deeds in the name of God.

Doing for your own fame/immortalization/statue is not the same.

Indeed it's not the same, but most good deeds are done simply because we socially learn that we should do them and that they will be reciprocated.

[DanDaMan]

Indeed it's not the same, but most good deeds are done simply because we socially learn that we should do them and that they will be reciprocated.

I Still see no strong argument as to why a materialistic society would adopt that ideal?
Explain to me the shame of selfishness when materialism is king?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Sounds just like classic liberalism - is there any difference?

[Voluntary]

Anarchy is perhaps one of the most diverse political philosophies. When you say you want a debate about anarchy are you talking about anarchy in general or a particular school of thought, such as individualist anarchism, mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc?

Can it work? Yes anarchy has worked in the past. Medieval Iceland and Celtic Ireland are some great example where anarchy lasted a long time, they were prosperous, and enjoyed much more peace than their neighbors. They were not without violence or wars, but being anarchic, they couldn't afford long lasting, intense warfare as you can under a state.

The only concern that an anarchist would have in Medieval Iceland or Celtic Ireland is that you were forced to belong to a governing body. In Iceland you had to belong to a "godord" and in Ireland a "tauth". Essentially these were collection of rights and enforced through a governing body. It required your allegiance, but the beauty is that you could freely change your allegiance if you so desired. In fact, many people freely changed godords and tauth.

The United States was founded upon Classical Liberalism. While not completely anarchic, it was pretty close, especially Jefferson's views on governance.

Whether or not anarchy is feasible or desirable, there is certainly room in our society to become more anarchic; recognizing individual sovereignty over government and national sovereignty.

One concern I have with anarchy is the establishment of environment and natural resource ownership since I believe in some sort of fair share constraint and disagree with the "first come, first serve" philosophies of others. I am not sure if there is an anarchic solution to this along with solving negative externalities, such as air pollution. My gut tells me no.

[sans-culotte]

I Still see no strong argument as to why a materialistic society would adopt that ideal?
Explain to me the shame of selfishness when materialism is king?

Your model of a "materialistic society" seems be a fictional construct. Societies are constructed through interaction, not through ideals.