Anarchy is by definition the absence of government. Thats a terrible idea, people barely follow the rules we have if we got rid of them...
English
-
[quote]Anarchy is by definition the absence of government. Thats a terrible idea, people barely follow the rules we have if we got rid of them...[/quote] The absence of a state does not necessitate absence of alternatives to what the state currently provides.
-
the -blam!- does that even mean?
-
To say that anarchism is a mere removal of our "rules" (or of anything else the state provides) is unfounded. The status quo is heavily invested in the state - it's odd to think that removing the state would simply mean a perpetuation of the status quo minus the state.
-
[quote]Definition of anarchy 1a : absence of government [b]b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy[/b] [/quote] Taken from Webster dictionary. Conversation over.
-
Semantics. Don't conflate what is essentially a colloquialism with actual anarchist theory. Anarchism 1. a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups From the same dictionary. Turns out actual argumentation takes more than a semantic orgasm.
-
By that own definition it's the same thing because you can't enforce laws without authority.
-
Depends on your conception of law and of authority, but that's not relevant to the point being made. The first statement was essentially implying that anarchism is a mere removal of the state and its infrastructure, without any kind of alternatives or underground infrastructure. That's not really an accurate characterization of anarchism - that's my point. If you want to speak about law and authority, then I put it to you that both of those things can exist (in a sense). The state is not the only possible entity that can (or does) maintain order - it just happens to have a judicial monopoly on aggression, which really helps it corner the market on defense and security. Security and defense can absolutely arise out of voluntary interactions between individuals - it currently stems (inefficiently) out of involuntary interactions (citizen vs. state). Unless you can demonstrate that security can [i]only[/i] be provided through predatory and coercive exchanges, then there's no reason to hold the position that [i]only[/i] the state can provide these particular services.
-
[quote]Unless you can demonstrate that security can [i]only[/i] be provided through predatory and coercive exchanges[/quote] Like all of the histories ever.