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?'
User avatar
By Morgan Le Fey
#15251518
Well I am a real Anarchist, and the number one issue in your scenario is you haven't given up your leaders. We don't want or need them.
User avatar
By Deutschmania
#15253273
XDU wrote: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.

From what I gather from watching such self described anarchists as Emerican Johnson, what anarchism stands opposed to is hierarchical authority more so than authority in and of itself. I will include a couple videos that illustrate this point.
#15253276
Morgan Le Fey wrote:Well I am a real Anarchist, and the number one issue in your scenario is you haven't given up your leaders. We don't want or need them.

War of all against all where the richest own the biggest weapons and take whatever they want sounds like a blast.
By late
#15253279
It's still a contradiction in terms...

The problem with cute political flavors is they don't live on this planet.

Never will.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15253282
Deutschmania wrote:
what anarchism stands opposed to is hierarchical authority more so than authority in and of itself. I will include a couple videos that illustrate this point.



Would you mind *distinguishing* 'hierarchical authority' from 'authority in and of itself' -- ?


---


Morgan Le Fey wrote:
Well I am a real Anarchist, and the number one issue in your scenario is you haven't given up your leaders. We don't want or need them.



Unthinking Majority wrote:
War of all against all where the richest own the biggest weapons and take whatever they want sounds like a blast.



You're fearmongering based on your *own* ideological imputation of Purge-Day-like stereotypes of anarchy.

This is called 'drinking your own Kool Aid' -- you *wish* that anarchism (etc.) *conformed* to your ideological expectations / imputations, but it's a potential *hazard*, because if you actually *believe* what you're putting out there, then *this* is what happens -- you're starting to sound *anti-plutocratic*, whether you mean to or not.

(Another recent instance was when the migrants flown to Martha's Vineyard were expected / *assumed* by the right-wing to be unwelcomed -- yet they were *welcomed* and are now dispersed around eastern Massachusetts.)

When far leftists -- f.y.i. -- speak of potential 'leaderlessness', it *doesn't* connote a 'post-apocalyptic wasteland' ('Robocop', 'Mad Max'), as you and your ilk may like to imagine.

Believe it or not it's arguably possible to sustain decent lives and lifestyles without the presence of the *state* -- the bulk of human historical existence has been this way, 'primitive communism', or hunting-and-gathering, pre-surplus, pre-class-division.
#15253285
ckaihatsu wrote:You're fearmongering based on your *own* ideological imputation of Purge-Day-like stereotypes of anarchy.

This is called 'drinking your own Kool Aid' -- you *wish* that anarchism (etc.) *conformed* to your ideological expectations / imputations, but it's a potential *hazard*, because if you actually *believe* what you're putting out there, then *this* is what happens -- you're starting to sound *anti-plutocratic*, whether you mean to or not.

(Another recent instance was when the migrants flown to Martha's Vineyard were expected / *assumed* by the right-wing to be unwelcomed -- yet they were *welcomed* and are now dispersed around eastern Massachusetts.)

When far leftists -- f.y.i. -- speak of potential 'leaderlessness', it *doesn't* connote a 'post-apocalyptic wasteland' ('Robocop', 'Mad Max'), as you and your ilk may like to imagine.

Believe it or not it's arguably possible to sustain decent lives and lifestyles without the presence of the *state* -- the bulk of human historical existence has been this way, 'primitive communism', or hunting-and-gathering, pre-surplus, pre-class-division.


"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist papers, no. 15

Sorry but systems of anarchy are pure hierarchy in it's greatest form. The bulk of human existence has also been loaded with far more war, rape, violence, theft etc because people and groups with power use it to exploit those with lesser power and take what they want.

The international system is currently within a system of anarchy. There is no global government to enforce international law. Putin and George W Bush will not be jailed for war crimes. Stronger countries threaten, attack and exploit weaker countries every day. We've run the anarchy experiment for tens of thousands of years, it's a disaster. The most internally dangerous countries in the world are the ones where rule of law is the weakest. You want your country to be like Somalia?

Laws are good. Laws prevent the powerful from exploiting the weak. Laws mean contracts can be enforced. The key is to have a system where laws are created and enforced by a just system where rule is concentrated in the hands of all - where the governed rule over themselves. The problem with democracies now is we have unaccountable police abusing their authority and able to act above the law, and elected goons paid off by the most powerful individuals and corporations and foreign governments.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15253287
Unthinking Majority wrote:
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint" - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist papers, no. 15

Sorry but systems of anarchy are pure hierarchy in it's greatest form. The bulk of human existence has also been loaded with far more war, rape, violence, theft etc because people and groups with power use it to exploit those with lesser power and take what they want.

The international system is currently within a system of anarchy. There is no global government to enforce international law. Putin and George W Bush will not be jailed for war crimes. Stronger countries threaten, attack and exploit weaker countries every day. We've run the anarchy experiment for tens of thousands of years, it's a disaster. The most internally dangerous countries in the world are the ones where rule of law is the weakest. You want your country to be like Somalia?

Laws are good. Laws prevent the powerful from exploiting the weak. Laws mean contracts can be enforced. The key is to have a system where laws are created and enforced by a just system where rule is concentrated in the hands of all - where the governed rule over themselves. The problem with democracies now is we have unaccountable police abusing their authority and able to act above the law, and elected goons paid off by the most powerful individuals and corporations and foreign governments.



So if '[bourgeois-statist] laws are good', then why aren't laws being *used* to make police *accountable* -- ?

'Civil society' is not a controversial term, but where *is* the intact civil society connoted, when in the real-world '[W]e have unaccountable polce abusing their authority', and 'elected goons paid off by the most powerful individuals and corporations and foreign governments' -- ?

Doesn't your / the 'global international anarchy' reality only *beg the question* of civil society -- ?

Wikipedia already exists.
#15253292
ckaihatsu wrote:So if '[bourgeois-statist] laws are good', then why aren't laws being *used* to make police *accountable* -- ?

'Civil society' is not a controversial term, but where *is* the intact civil society connoted, when in the real-world '[W]e have unaccountable polce abusing their authority', and 'elected goons paid off by the most powerful individuals and corporations and foreign governments' -- ?

Doesn't your / the 'global international anarchy' reality only *beg the question* of civil society -- ?

Wikipedia already exists.

The laws for police being held accountable largely already exist, but they aren't enforced. The forces are corrupt, as are governments. So that means things like more oversight is needed. These systems aren't perfect by any means. But that doesn't mean they should be abolished.

It's not like we haven't run the anarchy experiment before many times. People seem to think they were the "good old days" or something. The solution to those problem is the rule of law.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15253298
Unthinking Majority wrote:
The laws for police being held accountable largely already exist, but they aren't enforced. The forces are corrupt, as are governments. So that means things like more oversight is needed. These systems aren't perfect by any means. But that doesn't mean they should be abolished.



UM, all you're doing is intellectualizing.

What's your political *line* if governments-are-corrupt, and laws-already-exist, yet 1000+ people are killed in the U.S. at the hands of killer cops.

The reason why I say that Wikipedia already exists is because everyone already knows the *information*. Recall:



"Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it"



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theses_on_Feuerbach



Also, regarding the *quality of your content*, there's this scale of 'qualitativeness' / quality:


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
It's not like we haven't run the anarchy experiment before many times. People seem to think they were the "good old days" or something. The solution to those problem is the rule of law.


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Wikipedia is democratic, isn't it? And has rules?



You're *still* stuck on this idea of society / government being a grand Petri-dish "experiment", but guess what? Humanity has a real *history*, and it's still relevant today, like your own referencing of police brutality.

'Laws' is the *means*, but what are the *ends* -- ?


Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image
#15253300
ckaihatsu wrote:UM, all you're doing is intellectualizing.

What's your political *line* if governments-are-corrupt, and laws-already-exist, yet 1000+ people are killed in the U.S. at the hands of killer cops


You're saying the systems can't be reformed, accountability and transparency mechanisms added etc, therefore the system must be blown up. I disagree.

Countries like Denmark, Norway are doing pretty well. I assume also not perfect. The US system is not the norm in the West, where money is speech and cops are violent racist goons constantly afraid for their life because anyone can be carrying a firearm.

User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15253302
Unthinking Majority wrote:
You're saying the systems can't be reformed, accountability and transparency mechanisms added etc, therefore the system must be blown up. I disagree.



'Blown up' -- ? Really?

That's more facile stereotyping.

In *reality* the working class has an objective empirical interest in *securing*, and *controlling* the products of their own labor, including *all* past factories / infrastructure built -- necessarily by *labor*.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Unthinking Majority wrote:
Countries like Denmark, Norway are doing pretty well. I assume also not perfect. The US system is not the norm in the West, where money is speech and cops are violent racist goons constantly afraid for their life because anyone can be carrying a firearm.

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwh0lBPHg9o



Why did they decide to become *cops* then, in the *first* place -- ? Didn't they know the *risks* beforehand? Are you *whining* for them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collabora ... rs#Denmark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collabora ... ers#Norway
User avatar
By Morgan Le Fey
#15253310
In every definition of the word, this is reformist and is in no way revolutionary at all. It's like that famous "leftist" YouTuber who goes about busily transforming hard left positions into more easily digestible "liberal bytes"

Every response from the OP is textbook reformist, there is zero anarchy here anywhere.
#15253325
ckaihatsu wrote:How much are they *paying* you, UM -- ?


= D

I say i want the police held accountable and you think they're paying me?

I'm sorry my reasonable solutions frustrate your revolutionary mindset.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15253328
Unthinking Majority wrote:
I say i want the police held accountable and you think they're paying me?

I'm sorry my reasonable solutions frustrate your revolutionary mindset.



Well, please excuse my upfrontness, then -- how long *should* society allow a thousand people a year to die at the hands of killer cops?
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]