What ANARCHY is for and against

[Terrapin Station]

What would make a society with laws/rules that are enforced not a government? What sort of definition of "government" would we be using?

The society at large wouldn't have laws. Individuals would have individual laws that they establish themselves and enforce upon themselves, i.e., govern themselves. Therefore there would be no social government. Just people governing themselves, if you want to call that a form of government...

It might be smaller populations, with competing laws between them, but that doesn't amount to it being not government or not social. Again, people would organize and take control via threats of force.

I can make people do what I want, and allow what I want, by grouping with others who want the same thing, where we arm ourselves to deal with people who would oppose us. The only way around that is for others to organize and arm themselves, too, but that just creates a bigger organized force instituting the rules they want instead.

[gad-fly]

Terrapin Station asked: What would make a society with laws/rules that are enforced not (by) a government? What sort of definition of "government" would we be using?

Let us return to definition. A community is a group of similar or related individuals, called members of the community. A society is an organized community, which may vary in size from as small as a family to as large as a state. To be organized, a society must have its own apparatus to keep law and order. This apparatus, being the governing body, is defined as its government, to which the state has vested it with the authority to govern. A state with no government enforcement is a dysfunctional state which would fall apart.

Anarchism advocates Anarchy, which is a society like Monarchy and Oligarchy, with each having its own government. It would be an oxymoron to allege that Anarchism is against statehood or government, since this is like saying Anarchism is against what it desires to install. In this respect, Anarchism may be against other forms of government, but it cannot be against government per se.

Take a British family with two parents and two teenagers. If the father has most of the say, it is a monarchy; if the parents have most of the say, it is an oligarchy. if all four have the same say, it is an anarchy. Who is the government? Most probably, Mom. It is inconceivable that the family would take a stand against Great Britain as a nation. It may oppose the Conservative Government, but not any British government.

But wait. We have yet to hear what those historical anarchist leaders have to say because, after all, anarchism is their idea in the first place. What have they tried to persuade us, and what they done to show us how? Let me take a break, and I shall trace their footsteps, from Proudhon to those dying in the Spanish Civil War, to spread a more fruitful debate.

[LuckyR]

If everyone in the "group" is completely equal and independent, then the group is not really a group (government, with a leader, followers etc) just a collection of individuals who happen to exist close to one another. Of course, since a typical family is a government such that it has a leader, followers and a common purpose, it is essentially the smallest division of the government. But I suppose a true anarchy is technically possible.

In a practical sense an anarchist doesn't believe in the current government (the unspoken part is they do believe in a different form of government).

Of course, aside from it just being impossible ontologically, everyone in a society isn't going to be equal/independent if we have laws/rules that are enforced. To have that, we need laws/rules, we need to wind up with people who break them, and we need to wind up with those people being (forceably) reprimanded in some manner. That's effectively a government.

I don't think that anarchies are really possible, because there would always be people who'll take some sort of organized control via threat of force that turns into actual applications of force if their demands (laws/rules) aren't followed.

Well yes and no. If government A is in power and I believe in government B (which is not in power), I can be a practical anarchist (against A), if I succeed in toppling A, suddenly I am a governmental supporter (for B).

In other words, anarchy is one possible avenue for governmental change, but not a form of governance itself.

[Steve3007]

In other words, anarchy is one possible avenue for governmental change, but not a form of governance itself.

By definition, it can't be a form of government in itself because the word literally means "no government". An expression like "anarchy as a form of government" is an oxymoron. But, as you're perhaps suggesting, I suppose it's possible that some people might believe in a form of society (not a form of government) characterised by constant change - chaos. i.e. an endless state of revolution in which all rules/laws/government are endlessly overturned and replaced.

The question of whether we view that society as anarchic then depends on the timescale over which we measure it. If we measure an infinitesimal snapshot, it is not anarchy. It has government/law (albeit a different one from another snapshot). If the timescale is much longer than the revolution resolution (the time taken for a single revolution to occur) then it is arguably anarchic.

This is somewhat analogous to something like a gas in a state of equilibrium in a container. On a small scale it is seemingly a chaotic flurry of molecules bouncing around, seemingly at random. On a larger scale it is placid and stable.

[Steve3007]

But the other way around.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course, aside from it just being impossible ontologically, everyone in a society isn't going to be equal/independent if we have laws/rules that are enforced. To have that, we need laws/rules, we need to wind up with people who break them, and we need to wind up with those people being (forceably) reprimanded in some manner. That's effectively a government.

I don't think that anarchies are really possible, because there would always be people who'll take some sort of organized control via threat of force that turns into actual applications of force if their demands (laws/rules) aren't followed.

Well yes and no. If government A is in power and I believe in government B (which is not in power), I can be a practical anarchist (against A), if I succeed in toppling A, suddenly I am a governmental supporter (for B).

In other words, anarchy is one possible avenue for governmental change, but not a form of governance itself.

Yeah, it's not a form of government and it's not sustainable for any extended period of time.

[Terrapin Station]

In other words, anarchy is one possible avenue for governmental change, but not a form of governance itself.

By definition, it can't be a form of government in itself because the word literally means "no government". An expression like "anarchy as a form of government" is an oxymoron.

Words are not required to have any particular relation to their etymologies or to previous usages of similar text strings/sounds. (In response to your "can't be").

It's just that contingently, the conventional, most popular usage of "anarchy" is still "no government," where that's connected to the term's etymology .

Any text string could have any definition. It's just a matter of people using the word that way. There aren't actually any rules for it.

[Steve3007]

Words are not required to have any particular relation to their etymologies or to previous usages of similar text strings/sounds. (In response to your "can't be").

(In response to your "required"). Requirement implies purpose. The purpose, in the case of words, is to communicate with other people. Words can indeed become detached from their etymological origins, and usages can indeed change over time, but it's clearly absurd to say that they are not required to have any particular relation to previous usages of similar text strings/sounds. Clearly some form of continuity of meaning, over time, is required if the purpose is to communicate. If the purpose is something else then that continuity is not required.

Obviously if we were using the word "anarchy" to mean something different, like for example (the standard definitions of) "democracy" or "screwdriver", then things would be different. But, as far as I'm aware, we're not.

[Terrapin Station]

Requirement implies purpose. The purpose, in the case of words, is to communicate with other people.

For any x, the purpose of x only obtains for individuals, and purposes only obtain for any given individual when an individual thinks about x in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise no purpose obtains. No purposes obtain outside of individual's minds, and no purposes obtain for individuals who do not think about the thing in question in a goal-oriented manner.

The purpose for any word, or for "words overall" for an individual, S, is however S thinks about the word or words overall, assuming they think about them in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise there's no purpose for any word or for words overall for the individual in question.

[Steve3007]

For any x, the purpose of x only obtains for individuals, and purposes only obtain for any given individual when an individual thinks about x in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise no purpose obtains. No purposes obtain outside of individual's minds, and no purposes obtain for individuals who do not think about the thing in question in a goal-oriented manner.

The purpose for any word, or for "words overall" for an individual, S, is however S thinks about the word or words overall, assuming they think about them in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise there's no purpose for any word or for words overall for the individual in question.

Jesus, you really like to make a meal of things don't you? Read that back to yourself.

[LuckyR]

In other words, anarchy is one possible avenue for governmental change, but not a form of governance itself.

By definition, it can't be a form of government in itself because the word literally means "no government". An expression like "anarchy as a form of government" is an oxymoron. But, as you're perhaps suggesting, I suppose it's possible that some people might believe in a form of society (not a form of government) characterised by constant change - chaos. i.e. an endless state of revolution in which all rules/laws/government are endlessly overturned and replaced.

The question of whether we view that society as anarchic then depends on the timescale over which we measure it. If we measure an infinitesimal snapshot, it is not anarchy. It has government/law (albeit a different one from another snapshot). If the timescale is much longer than the revolution resolution (the time taken for a single revolution to occur) then it is arguably anarchic.

This is somewhat analogous to something like a gas in a state of equilibrium in a container. On a small scale it is seemingly a chaotic flurry of molecules bouncing around, seemingly at random. On a larger scale it is placid and stable.

Yes, obviously it is not a form of government, hence why I wrote governance (a way of managing a country, not government, which is only one form of governance).

No, anarchy is a means to an end, but not an end in itself.

[Terrapin Station]

For any x, the purpose of x only obtains for individuals, and purposes only obtain for any given individual when an individual thinks about x in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise no purpose obtains. No purposes obtain outside of individual's minds, and no purposes obtain for individuals who do not think about the thing in question in a goal-oriented manner.

The purpose for any word, or for "words overall" for an individual, S, is however S thinks about the word or words overall, assuming they think about them in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise there's no purpose for any word or for words overall for the individual in question.

Jesus, you really like to make a meal of things don't you? Read that back to yourself.

You should be able to follow it if you read it slowly/carefully.

[Steve3007]

For any x, the purpose of x only obtains for individuals, and purposes only obtain for any given individual when an individual thinks about x in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise no purpose obtains. No purposes obtain outside of individual's minds, and no purposes obtain for individuals who do not think about the thing in question in a goal-oriented manner.

Translation:
People have purposes. Purpose = goal. They're in people's minds (they're thoughts, not tables).

The purpose for any word, or for "words overall" for an individual, S, is however S thinks about the word or words overall, assuming they think about them in a goal-oriented manner. Otherwise there's no purpose for any word or for words overall for the individual in question.

Translation:
Purpose/goal of a word = how people think about the word.

---

1st paragraph: a purpose/goal is a thought in a human mind. I think we probably knew that already.
2nd paragraph: people make their own purposes for words.

Both paragraphs say these things in an unnecessarily convoluted way and don't shed any light because they miss the point. The point is that our common purpose/goal is to communicate. And the reason why we agree on standard definitions of words, and don't generally just make up our own private definitions, is because we share that purpose/goal. You can say that communication "only obtains for individuals" if you like. That may be true of you. (Judging by some of the things you say, it probably is.) But it's not for the rest of the world.


So, "anarchy" might, to some people, mean what I mean when I say "screwdriver" or "democracy". But my working hypothesis is that they want to communicate, so it doesn't. Again: bloody obvious.

[Terrapin Station]

Both paragraphs say these things in an unnecessarily convoluted way and don't shed any light because they miss the point. The point is that our common purpose/goal is to communicate.

Do you mean statistically common? As in that's a more common purpose than other purposes people have, when they have them in this context?

If so, (a) what evidence are you appealing to for that? And more importantly, (b) of what relevance is it to anything? X is more common than y. Well, so what? That has no implication for anything.

[Steve3007]

Do you mean statistically common?

I would have thought it was obvious that I mean "common" as in the phrase "we have something in common". It seems to me obvious that, in using standard definitions of words, and not their own private usages, people have a common purpose which is: communicating. This isn't the philosophical equivalent of rocket science. It's common sense. (See if you can work out the sense in which "common" is used there without asking me.)