What would a society under political anarchy be like?

[Moonlight Graham]

All laws are a form of coercion. If you don't obey them, you are physically forced into jail by government. It would be interesting if people had the choice to move to an independent territory (like a state/country, but a state implies government) with no central government and no enforced laws. An anarchic state.

But what would such a state be like? How would society function? How would property and personal safety be protected (from both domestic hooligans & foreign armies)? What is your vision of what this society/state would be like if it existed in the current geopolitical world we live in? (Let's make the assumption that this society was started/inhabited by people like us of western culture to avoid recent comparisons to Somalia).

Edited May 14, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

(Let's make the assumption that this society was started/inhabited by people like us of western culture to avoid recent comparisons to Somalia)

Well that is a wrong assumption. Humans are genetically wired to coalesce into groups for protection. Unity within the group must be maintained and they must be willing to violence against those that threaten the group because the group would be wiped out otherwise.

We have established a system of peaceful co-existence in modern society that depends entirely on a complex set of rules and the widely held belief that people who break the rules will be punished with the appropriate level of violence if required. Any society that did not have these rules enforced by violence would revert to a collection of warring feudal states like Somalia or Afghanistan - i.e. rules enforced by uncontrolled gang violence instead of tightly controlled police violance.

IOW - an anarchic state free of coercive laws is a practical impossibility. The system that we have where the use of violence to enforce rules is strictly proscribed by those same laws is a much better solution.

Edited May 14, 2012 by TimG

[Guest Derek L]

Simply put:

[Moonlight Graham]

Well that is a wrong assumption.

I qualified this assumption so that in this debate people would imagine themselves in the anarchic society, and not simply state that "well, look at Somalia, it had no central government for years and look what happened". Simply stating Somalia as evidence of a view on anarchy is difficult because the country had a certain historical context (including civil war), culture, economic level etc., that was unique.

[bush_cheney2004]

I qualified this assumption...

As pointed out above, such an assumption is not consistent with reality. Nothing special about Somalia or "western culture".

[TimG]

I qualified this assumption so that in this debate people would imagine themselves in the anarchic society, and not simply state that "well, look at Somalia, it had no central government for years and look what happened

Well, I addressed your point by explaining exactly why I believe anarchy will either result in the re-establishment of a coercive state or a violent mess like Somalia. Do you have any comment on those arguments?

[Guest Derek L]

I qualified this assumption so that in this debate people would imagine themselves in the anarchic society, and not simply state that "well, look at Somalia, it had no central government for years and look what happened". Simply stating Somalia as evidence of a view on anarchy is difficult because the country had a certain historical context (including civil war), culture, economic level etc., that was unique.

And what do you think differing point is between Canadian society and that of Somalia? Clearly there is a threshold, but what?

[Moonlight Graham]

Any society that did not have these rules enforced by violence would revert to a collection of warring feudal states like Somalia or Afghanistan - i.e. rules enforced by uncontrolled gang violence instead of tightly controlled police violence.

I think it would be beyond gang violence. That would exist, as it does seemingly in every country, but I would also see larger communities or factions being formed within an anarchic state. Large factions are more powerful than smaller gangs. Each faction would have people working as enforcers/protectors in order to protect their faction from outsiders, or from internal violence etc.

A huge problem I could see is in defending the country from foreign armies, who make wish to invade for resources or territory expansion. With no central government and unified/coordinated army, it would make defending the state much harder.

[TimG]

A huge problem I could see is in defending the country from foreign armies, who make wish to invade for resources or territory expansion. With no central government and unified/coordinated army, it would make defending the state much harder.

An excellent summary of why the modern state is the only way to ensure the safety and security of the majority of people. Edited May 14, 2012 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, I addressed your point by explaining exactly why I believe anarchy will either result in the re-establishment of a coercive state or a violent mess like Somalia. Do you have any comment on those arguments?

All I can say is that you may indeed be right, it's a strong argument, and many things lead to the need to strict laws and a central government in order to maintain a semblance of order. I do think a state with no central authority would be more violent.

Maybe some comparison to how native North Americans lived would provide a bit of insight to how anarchy would work, since there was obviously no central government uniting the different tribes. Also, the international system of states is also anarchic. There is no "world government" and no global police/army, only individual states existing together and able to attack each other with no central authority to punish them, only alliances as well as collective security institutions like NATO and the UN.

[TimG]

Also, the international system of states is also anarchic. There is no "world government" and no global police/army, only individual states existing together and able to attack each other with no central authority to punish them, only alliances as well as collective security institutions like NATO and the UN.

I think this example shows that anarchy can exist at the state level and there is no need for a single "world government". The interesting question is why we have arrived at this stable anarchy. I think is it the direct result of technology making the cost of war too high for the largest states (this is due to the economic losses and the threat of total nuclear annihilation).

[Signals.Cpl]

All laws are a form of coercion. If you don't obey them, you are physically forced into jail by government. It would be interesting if people had the choice to move to an independent territory (like a state/country, but a state implies government) with no central government and no enforced laws. An anarchic state.

But what would such a state be like? How would society function? How would property and personal safety be protected (from both domestic hooligans & foreign armies)? What is your vision of what this society/state would be like if it existed in the current geopolitical world we live in? (Let's make the assumption that this society was started/inhabited by people like us of western culture to avoid recent comparisons to Somalia).

Depends on the scale, for example if we had a piece of territory within a country like say Canada, the US or Australia for simple reason of external security the aforementioned territory might become a preferred vacation spot as it would offer people the ability to do things that would otherwise be illegal. It would not be truly anarchy as it would spill over to the territory of the neighbouring country and in turn that country would try to pacify the territory.

If on the other hand it becomes a world wide state then it would have to come after a devastating event that would shrink dramatically the world population anarchy cannot last for long as the strong will abuse the weak and thus the weak will be forced to band together. Soon enough the people will form larger and larger enclaves and essentially repeat history unify in to tribes for protection then city-states larger nations and so on. But this scenario does not account for people getting their hands on nukes from the Nuclear powers.

[eyeball]

A huge problem I could see is in defending the country from foreign armies, who make wish to invade for resources or territory expansion. With no central government and unified/coordinated army, it would make defending the state much harder.

It could also make it harder to subjugate if Afghanistan is anything to go by.

[Signals.Cpl]

It could also make it harder to subjugate if Afghanistan is anything to go by.

Don't worry the Taliban haven't won.

[dre]

All laws are a form of coercion. If you don't obey them, you are physically forced into jail by government. It would be interesting if people had the choice to move to an independent territory (like a state/country, but a state implies government) with no central government and no enforced laws. An anarchic state.

But what would such a state be like? How would society function? How would property and personal safety be protected (from both domestic hooligans & foreign armies)? What is your vision of what this society/state would be like if it existed in the current geopolitical world we live in? (Let's make the assumption that this society was started/inhabited by people like us of western culture to avoid recent comparisons to Somalia).

We already know what this looks like. Over time rules and authorities would naturally emerge.