609 Would Anarchy Create Governments?

To be entirely frank, it seems both you Bitbutter and FatGermanBastard have argued without adequately understanding eachother enough... If i may suggest so, i think you can both benefit more from sending private messages between you so you do not have to constrain your argumentations to these measly comments :)

cheers

a: It's possible for people in general to prosper without the state (eg. when the commitment to the principle of non violence is widespread).

b. People in general currently know what the best way to organise society is.

A does not logically entail B. And anarchism does not claim or imply B. That's why your argument fails.

"And anarchism does not claim or imply B"

Well but B is the requirement for anarchy to work the way an anarchist wants it to work, right ?

I don't know if it's a requirement for successful anarchy, i think the non aggression principle is much more important, the moral argument. But I think that anarchists do often aim to achieve B.

I don't know I think the fact that we started out with no governments and ended up with the world as it is now and the fact that the world remains to be the way it is now (with governments present) proves that anarchy has a tendency to eliminate itself. I think this is also what Randy's argument boils down to. The fact that we do not have anarchy already proves that anarchy does not sustain itself.

At one point people could make a similar argument about slavery: the world started without slavery, and now the world has slavery (and considers it legitimate), so surely 'non-slavery' would always revert to slavery. That turned out to be false.

The conditions under which states, and statism, got started are in some senses very different to the conditions in certain parts of the world now. In light of these changes in attitude, i don't think it's inevitable that anarchy would lead to states.

Slavery...well yeah one could argue this way. If you think slavery has been abolished...dream on !

Apart from that it seems self evident for me that whatever can be exploited will be exploited. Whenever there is room for just a litte exploit you'll see someone taking advantage of it. Isn't it that way ?

Slavery was once universally accepted as legitimate (same as racism), and conducted on a massive scale. In the west at least, that's no longer the case. So even if slavery persists now, it doesn't seem justified to claim that non-slavery always reverts to slavery. The lesson is that even attitudes and practices that seem entrenched can be changed.

Yes, people try to gain power and exploit each other, which is why we should never be comfortable granting a ruling elite a monopoly on force.

Indeed Bitbutter - if we are to prosper as a species in a maintainable manner in regards to not destroying the ecosystems we live in and such, we really must seek primarily two things;

Peace, as in peace between governments, nations, people, military peace.
Restfulness, as in the ability for our populations to get along without unrest and disturbances, without oppression or deceit.

Well, logically speaking yes ; when there is someone taking advantage of something or someone it benefits themself or they would not do it, and by benefitting it makes it more likely that someone else will learn the same behaviour by themselves, through the first beneficer, or through family heredity... Kings and princes and so on.

The only way to 'break' the chain though is through force of two ways; exterminating those taking advantage, or removing the opportunity itself.