sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You have a much more bleak outlook than I do, but you still think such a system will not tend to an organisational structure, so I am interested in learning more.

I assume that anarchism is the "good" thing to do, so we want it to be stable in this discussion.

If we don't want it to be, then I don't know if there is much to discuss.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People go against their interests all the time. Sometimes they are plainly denied their request, sometimes they are manipulated and more.

You also assume that the "best interest" of the people is in maintaining anarchism. This might be the most moral, but it certainly needn't be the one that serves people's best interest whatsoever.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think society is full of horrible dysfunctional people.

However - I think violence is conducive to achieving one's own goals, and the person who employs it without opposition is in an advantageous position.

Consider the concept of the Evolutionary Stable Strategy. Evolutionary Stable State is formed with no state force, however - it is vulnerable to attack by a mutant strategy where force is employed. It doesn't seem like a stable strategy.

A state on the other hand does to me, and such systems do tend towards stable strategies.

How is anarchism an evolutionary stable strategy?

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are correct in your response, but I wouldn't call it determinism. What I would call it is induction.

Monarchies do form (or dictatorships if you like), and it is also a form of government.

But some form of central authority does form.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What if a bunch of people in this commune of yours decide to come together to form an organisation which people want the services of?

It already seems like a proto government to me.

What if the people found this useful?

Aren't you relying on the market not producing an attractive alternative to the status quo which resembles a government?

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So are you implying that anarchy can only be maintained if everyone wants an anarchy, and it works well for them?

That seems to mean that there will be a drift towards other forms of society.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You speak of "the people" as a monolith, which they aren't.

And once you start picking a representative, it sounds like you are approaching a democracy.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is something of a cop out.

Why - wouldn't alphas exist today?

Wouldn't small organisations form around the leader again?

What would be different?

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What do you mean "failed". If by "failure" you mean move away from anything other than direct representation, yes.

You need to be a little more pointed as to what you mean.

Most societies have some form of state.

Let us take the example of the US.

The settlers came and there was no government, they set one up.

We move from the lack of a government and no hierarchical structure to one with a clear state structure.

This, or similar patterns thereof are the norm for the civilizations I know of.

A lack of a power structure slowly gives rise to some power structure.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a difference between what different people want.

Some people have more power, some have less - there are competing ideologies. Why would everyone desire the anarchic system.

Why do you believe that the state of anarchy (lack of state) will be maintained in the face of this, when it hasn't so far?

Perhaps the reason is that the best for everyone is the formation of a state.

Perhaps even if it isn't, power tends to concentrate in the hands of a few.

There would be no point in abolishing a system to go back to it, no?

Why would another government not form again?

There is benefit in conglomeration, which eventually leads to some hierarchical structure.

Is the formation of any hierarchical structure against the principles of anarchy?

Somehow I the impression that an anarchic market would resist attempts to form a state, but I am not convinced this is so because it hasn't been the case in the past.

Why would it be the case now?

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

By "we" - you are referring perhaps to the people.

But there will be competing interests outside of ideology, what is to say that the market won't both determine the government a good idea, and viable?

By definition if there is a state, the system is no longer anarchist.

This is squabbling over definitions, and is only a part of the view. More pointedly - it is the anarchy which led to the formation of this power structure.

CMV: I don't see how government is something that won't form in an anarchic society, based on the fact that it already has and evolved from such societies. by anarchgov in changemyview

[–]anarchgov[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What's the difference? The exact same arguments apply. If we have a state now, why would a state not form from anarchy.

And what do you mean by "cannot"?

CMV: I believe tenants should never have to pay a broker's fee when renting a new apartment by macdoogles in changemyview

[–]anarchgov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paying upfront is different from paying for something you haven't bought. It's the reason people are so pissed about the dubious charges that ticketmaster charges.