Types of Government

[Gmart]

an anarchist faq

Where the first line is:

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy

Which contradicts the claim here that we are talking about the former and not the latter.

It then goes on to describe it as the lack of Ruler, Sovereign etc - dramatising the overlordship and portraying the common man as "subordinated". Yet I have made it clear that all contracts have to be entered in freely and indeed I know of no one who would argue otherwise.

That site was rubbish - just lots of obvious truisms!! Who doesn't fight against injustice??

Yet the reality is that the moment all authority goes then organisation is set up by people between themselves and this is how it should be. You could try and call that Anarchism if you wished but it would actually be a form of Republic, because that "public thing" would still exist (see the clip).

We might not like the law heck who does? and certainly there are large numbers of laws which are evidently against the interest of the workers. Feel free to join the debate for legalising prostitution if you want to empower the workers...

But why concentrate on Bakunin and Kropotkin? J S Mill is just as good, indeed the Libertarian tradition would seem to be exactly what many 'Anarchists' are talking about, yet without the dramatic 'cool' name.

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

 

[Gmart]

the grand compromise of democracy churns out its policies, are a big problem that leaves most disgruntled and cynical about the democracy we have now. Still even if we had a fully balanced functional democracy, people would not always get their way, if all groups in society are equally disgruntled with the democracy then maybe that would be an indicator that it was fair and working!

People are indeed pissed off. There are many things which are obvious problems and the system is not reflecting these things. I think that our system is too much of a half-arsed, archaic system left over from Empire when we had the money to keep people quiet and in control while trampling on their rights. In the competition to see which country can get away with abusing their population for profit the most we have been winning for years.

Still i suspect the time will come when we will need to inject some idealism and some good practice in our system. I would suggest that that is exactly what the EU is about but the press can whip up anti-EU sentiment so well that sadly most people see a conspiracy.

I see an opportunity but many of those here seem keen to omit themselves from the discussion because they want to talk about anarchism etc and isolate themselves from the rest of society, refusing to accept their definitions and just deciding to play with each other rather than getting involved.

That clip is a good clip and could have given us a chance to discuss the key issues as to what form of Republic we should have. This ignorance keeps the people divided...

 

[yield]

I'm just trying to be realistic here. Everyone is just describing their ideal and calling it Anarchism where real Anarchism is a transitional period which doesn't exist in the long term (again pointed out on the clip and thus given as the reason for its dismissal).

Idealism and pragmatism? Or is it pragmatism and idealism? I think you're getting confused here. "Real Anarchism"?

It's just a goal on the horizon. A more equal less hierarchical world to live in. No bowing and scraping because Lord such-and-such's grandma sucked a Princes cock or President so-and-so's grandad sold weapons to the Nazis.

Just describing something else and insisting that it is actually Anarchism and that my refusal to accept this, just means that I must be thick...

Couldn't possibly comment.

The idea of localisation without any centralism for issues of that nature seems closer to describing England in the early 17th century, before the technological age we have now. It was broadly like this because we hadn't developed. However it is of course, unrealistic to expect the

as you put it, to suddenly disappear, for us to start again.

The future need not be like the past. To think so is a failure of the imagination.

Where the first line is:

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy

Which contradicts the claim here that we are talking about the former and not the latter.

If you're looking for an authoritative account of anarchism you may be sorely disappointed.

It then goes on to describe it as the lack of Ruler, Sovereign etc - dramatising the overlordship and portraying the common man as "subordinated". Yet I have made it clear that all contracts have to be entered in freely and indeed I know of no one who would argue otherwise.

Freedom to starve. Great. You do know the difference between positive and negative freedom?

Contracts for the illiterate.

That site was rubbish - just lots of obvious truisms!! Who doesn't fight against injustice??

Many people don't "fight against injustice". Straussians and Randians to name a few.

Yet the reality is that the moment all authority goes then organisation is set up by people between themselves and this is how it should be. You could try and call that Anarchism if you wished but it would actually be a form of Republic, because that "public thing" would still exist (see the clip).

I've seen the clip. Obviously I disagree as Anarchism isn't Republicanism.

We might not like the law heck who does? and certainly there are large numbers of laws which are evidently against the interest of the workers. Feel free to join the debate for legalising prostitution if you want to empower the workers...

Could you explain to me how legalising prostitution empowers the workers?

But why concentrate on Bakunin and Kropotkin? J S Mill is just as good, indeed the Libertarian tradition would seem to be exactly what many 'Anarchists' are talking about, yet without the dramatic 'cool' name.

Yes because it is fundamentally about branding and having a cool name!

Gmarthews your posts amaze me.

 

[Squatticus]

LOL at the image of 'anarchy': a charabang running a tree over!

Also you gotta be suspicious when anyone says 'as the ancient Greeks said' - which ones?

Has anyone read Polybius book vi, by the way? Quite a fundamental text for this debate. (Though the middle bit about the army you can probably skip over). Polybius would have to say that the UK was a monarchy, i.e. one man ruling with the people's consent (which he opposes to tyranny: one man ruling without consent). Neither he, nor any other ancient Greek I suspect, would consider Britain a democracy, because of the lack of popular participation in government.

(Polybius you can find here)

 

[Squatticus]

Another whopper in the video:

'Civilised people have always hired someone to do the guarding'

Er, no.

Democratic Athens had a popular militia, not professional armed forces. The same is true of the Roman republic, where the professionalization of the Roman army is identified by every ancient and modern source with the break down of the constitution and the emergence of one man rule.

Now back to watch some more bollocks!

 

[Squatticus]

The vid seems to claim the distinction between Republic and Democracy is that in the former the laws trump majority decisions. So far so good, but it never mentions the question of who makes the laws. Hence you can have a democratic republic, or an oligarchic republic, which reveals 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive (unless you're playing Civ, of course ).

And what a travesty of Roman history! As if the Roman republic never passed any laws after the Twelve Tables (c.450BC)!

@ grmatthews: as you can see I've tried to respond to the vid, but it is utter shite I'm afraid.

(No time to go into the last 2 minutes of the video, the Roman history bit, but almost every single word of it was seriously misleading - to correct it I would have to write a post which was a basic text book).

 

[butchersapron]

How can someone so thick manage to write so much shit. (Marthews i mean). Actually, it's probably that fact that he's so thick that allows him to write such shit. There's not a single thing he understands. Every mangled sentence of his reveals a failure to comprehend, a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand or something similiar. The range of subjects he's unfamiliar with yet feels compelled to pontificate on is truly astonishing and impressive.

 

[Blagsta]

Where the first line is:

Which contradicts the claim here that we are talking about the former and not the latter.

It then goes on to describe it as the lack of Ruler, Sovereign etc - dramatising the overlordship and portraying the common man as "subordinated". Yet I have made it clear that all contracts have to be entered in freely and indeed I know of no one who would argue otherwise.

That site was rubbish - just lots of obvious truisms!! Who doesn't fight against injustice??

Yet the reality is that the moment all authority goes then organisation is set up by people between themselves and this is how it should be. You could try and call that Anarchism if you wished but it would actually be a form of Republic, because that "public thing" would still exist (see the clip).

We might not like the law heck who does? and certainly there are large numbers of laws which are evidently against the interest of the workers. Feel free to join the debate for legalising prostitution if you want to empower the workers...

But why concentrate on Bakunin and Kropotkin? J S Mill is just as good, indeed the Libertarian tradition would seem to be exactly what many 'Anarchists' are talking about, yet without the dramatic 'cool' name.

I tried.

 

[Squatticus]

Can you give us some examples of laws that an anarchist society would have?

E2A: That's a question for anyone, not just LB, BTW

"In that land, good customs achieve more than good laws do elsewhere", Tacitus, Germania 19.

 

[Gmart]

Another whopper in the video:

'Civilised people have always hired someone to do the guarding'

Well those who could afford it... ie the rich and that does indeed have historical precedence, unfortunately the poorer parts of the population just have to sit back and watch the hordes take their possessions.

Er, no.

Er, yes.

Democratic Athens had a popular militia, not professional armed forces. The same is true of the Roman republic, where the professionalization of the Roman army is identified by every ancient and modern source with the break down of the constitution and the emergence of one man rule.

I don't see how this is relevant, it just seems straightforward that the Rich will be able to protect themselves while the poor won't be able to during such a period of no organisation (ie Anarchism) and as I've said the military would step in and impose order too...

Now back to watch some more bollocks!

Going into it with an open mind I see...

The vid seems to claim the distinction between Republic and Democracy is that in the former the laws trump majority decisions. So far so good,

Of course you later describe it as utter shite...

but it never mentions the question of who makes the laws. Hence you can have a democratic republic, or an oligarchic republic, which reveals 'Republic' and 'Democracy' are not mutually exclusive (unless you're playing Civ, of course ).

If you have enshrined laws which are extremely difficult to overturn then the oligarchy or democracy would indeed be constrained. I think the clip is highlighting the ability of the oligarchy to abuse the rights of the people if not constrained as such.

And what a travesty of Roman history! As if the Roman republic never passed any laws after the Twelve Tables (c.450BC)!

Er this is a fragment, consider revising...

@ grmatthews: as you can see I've tried to respond to the vid, but it is utter shite I'm afraid.

You contradicted this yourself earlier actually...

(No time to go into the last 2 minutes of the video, the Roman history bit, but almost every single word of it was seriously misleading - to correct it I would have to write a post which was a basic text book).

As good excuse to avoid trying as I've heard. Still I've read and addressed your problems and at least you have watched it and considered it at least in a half-arsed way. You haven't really specified exactly why it is "utter shite" as you put it, but I suspect that comment was playing to the crowd rather than an actual opinion...

 

[Gmart]

Many people don't "fight against injustice". Straussians and Randians to name a few.

I beg to differ

I have interests in many philosophies and some people love to be judgemental about this - Of course if they were truly tolerant they would just accept that we live in a free society and that people are free to think and discuss what they wish.

I would be happier with a Left Right division if people were distinct about it. Yet the posters here seem reluctant - so here is mine.

People on the left tend to care about their fellow man while those on the Right don't. I would like to say that those on the Left Trust the people but that would be bollocks, (but of course the Right certainly don't trust the people) , and it is that distinction which often leads to people on the Left finding themselves on the Right without knowing it.

Authoritarianism sneaks up on people and when they started with all these good intentions they do have a tendency to forget about the inconveniences of freedoms and rights...

 

[Blagsta]

so nothing to do with economics again?

 

[butchersapron]

The marthews replies just get more and more bizzare.

 

[Blagsta]

I
I would be happier with a Left Right division if people were distinct about it. Yet the posters here seem reluctant - so here is mine

You've been given plenty of pointers! It's about economics. How goods and resources are distributed. Fundamental to that is a conception of the "indivdual". The left views people as inherently social, as formed by their relationships with others and that everything we do is a consequence of relationships and social endeavour. The right believes that people are first and foremost individuals who can (and should be) considered as divorced and seperate from others.

 

[Squatticus]

OK, I am a fool. I give up! grmathews you win!

 

[Luther Blissett]

OK, I am a fool. I give up! grmathews you win!

Tsk. gmarthews thinks what he's told to think. If he would just append everything he writes with 'so I'm told', then perhaps he'd achieve a degree of credibility.

 

[Squatticus]

Either he's failed the Turing test, or I have

 

[Luther Blissett]

Can you give us some examples of laws that an anarchist society would have?

E2A: That's a question for anyone, not just LB, BTW

found this thread, called Anarcho theories on law: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153514
just started having a read, and found this curiousity from early 2006...

I am sad that you reckon that i'm talking out of my backside, I was just trying to highlight the stereotype inherrent, in my view, with Anarchism in contrast with the more nuanced Liberalism which it so often turns into. Anarchism does have no laws as its basis, the moment laws are introduced it turns into Liberalism .... If you feel that i am wrong in this view then perhaps you could say why you think so, rather than stating the negative (which is the common cause with most of the Anarchists of my experience).

anarchism does not mean without rules or laws, it means no government and more specifically no state.

It's says alot for the critical faculties of our bright young things that they cannot grasp the difference between rules and laws and the state.

Anarchism does not put forward some absurd idea that we will return to a natural state of goodness with the ending of capitalism, that is idealist liberal bullshit and has nothing to do with anarchism as a concrete movement.

In Spain in 1936 the anarchists where the first to move to stop the arbitrary killings that followed the outbreak of civil war.

Thankyou revol68, I was concentrating on the law aspect, and am happy to be set right. Anarchism is more to do about no government/state. Mmm. I see that institution as a mechanism for facilitating cooperation between citizens, so as to ensure that common needs get dealt with efficiently and fairly. Who is going to collect the rubbish from my bathroom if there is no government to set up a sewage system? Who is going to run the prisons? Who is going to organise the recycling, or reusage of containers? What about the regulation of the markets which if left to themselves may well simply serve the rich and sod the poor? What about the upkeep of the roads? What about the unemployed? Hospitals? Emergency Services, law courts, the Police, schools, transport, health and safety. All issues that need large scale cooperation, though some may be done locally and certainly were during the isolationist period of history, many are large scale organisations and thus need to be organised at that level, therefore government of some form.

This almost seems like the 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch, but there you go.

... all very curious when you consider the claims gmarthews is making after having watched the video he linked to

I see no reason going over Anarchism when it is a transient situation at best - a society without laws (as the clip points out) (my emphasis) would have no freedom. If you introduce laws (as most people want) then you are going towards a republic and we can start the debate, but Anarchy it is not.

His belief that anarchism+law=liberalism (2006) has altered after watching this video to believe that anarchism+law=republicanism (as well as a whole host of other wrongthinking beliefs contained in that video, as already discussed earlier in this thread).

 

[Gmart]

Tsk. gmarthews thinks what he's told to think. If he would just append everything he writes with 'so I'm told', then perhaps he'd achieve a degree of credibility.

Only first hand experience cannot be described as 'so i've been told'

So everyone is guilty of that - all the books read here and regurgitated are second hand.

Oh and Yield asked:

Could you explain to me how legalising prostitution empowers the workers?

Here is the last thread where this comes up. Again it depends on whether the important thing is to listen and empower the workers or whether you moralise at them as part of the problem.

 

[butchersapron]

 

[Gmart]

found this thread, called Anarcho theories on law: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153514
just started having a read, and found this curiousity from early 2006...

... all very curious when you consider the claims gmarthews is making after having watched the video he linked to

His belief that anarchism+law=liberalism (2006) has altered after watching this video to believe that anarchism+law=republicanism (as well as a whole host of other wrong thinking beliefs contained in that video, as already discussed earlier in this thread).

I love how you state that have been discussed as if they had. I have stated above that anarchism+law seems to resemble libertarianism so I haven't changed much.
I have accepted though the need to state that anarchism is without centralised government not that that relates to any degree to the reality any of us live in.

Any laws created would be imposed from the centre. In the varied world we live in we will always need someone to run the sewage farms, bin collectors etc. It is just not realistic to expect the locals to be able to deal with everything. There are countless issues which are dealt with by Europe because they are big issues like fishing quotas or competition policy to ensure that companies don't play one country off against another. Where to put the rubbish too.

 

[butchersapron]

I love how you state that have been discussed as if they had. I have stated above that anarchism+law seems to resemble libertarianism so I haven't changed much.
I have accepted though the need to state that anarchism is without centralised government not that that relates to any degree to the reality any of us live in.

Any laws created would be imposed from the centre. In the varied world we live in we will always need someone to run the sewage farms, bin collectors etc. It is just not realistic to expect the locals to be able to deal with everything. There are countless issues which are dealt with by Europe because they are big issues like fishing quotas or competition policy to ensure that companies don't play one country off against another. Where to put the rubbish too.

Where to put the rubbish too.

 

[Gmart]

In an effort to continue this thread towards an actual discussion about the type of government we face and the issues anyone interested in change would need to address, may i suggest the documentary 'Century of the Self' which is very informative.

As far as the Anarchism issue goes I would suggest that a position of no laws would be transitory at best. 'Murder is bad' would be first on the books very quickly, and the moment it is we would have evolved into a form of Republic.

Laws and rights are necessary, sometimes they are organised at a larger scale because that is what is needed. If we didn't have competition laws agreed by the EU, then the companies would be quite happy to get the governments to compete on how badly they can treat their population - ie who can get away with not giving their workers many rights.

Until recently the UK was proud of not having adopted the Social Chapter from the EU, as we were told that it made us more competitive. However, all that meant was that our government was able to pull a fast one by playing to the isolationists and anti-EU press.

Cooperation is our strength - together we are stronger.

 

[Blagsta]

Why do you bother? You obviously don't read or take on board anything anyone replies to you with. You may as well be having a conversation with yourself.

 

[Fruitloop]

Start from Plato's Republic and work from there maybe? Avoid Rand like herpes.

 

[Gmart]

Why do you bother? You obviously don't read or take on board anything anyone replies to you with. You may as well be having a conversation with yourself.

Start from Plato's Republic and work from there maybe? Avoid Rand like herpes.

You're just proving what I'm saying.

Neither of you have really tried. You want to discuss this issue on your own terms using books you know and no actual original thought.

Why do I bother?, because it is instructive to find a group which so desperately avoids comment, and which then claims to have already answered everything magically without any discussion having been had.

I could recommend a book to you too, but the key thing in discussions is to take what is being discussed, and to paraphrase or quote someone's ideas when relevant.

I did this with J S Mill earlier and of course it was ignored.

And Fruitloop would seem classic. Doesn't actually want to quote which part of Plato's Republic relates to types of government, or to the clip, he just wants to join in with the mob.

The issue is quite simple. If Anarchism allows itself government then is it still Anarchism? The idea of government is control from the outside of the community, and so how can this be avoided in a world of limited resources? The moment a government is accepted as a necessary evil then the need or a constitution is evident or else the Rich take advantage of the poor. (Our unwritten one is just age old propaganda). And thus the debate as to what is actually on this document - the debate being avoided by the others here.

 

[Blagsta]

I rest my case.

 

[Gmart]

I rest my case.

After saying so little I am surprised you think that you made a case.

Pray what case do you feel to have made?

 

[Blagsta]

 

[Gmart]

Nothing, of course.

Just re-read the first part of this thread - funny how no one says anything much and then yield comes in and claims that the clip had been 'dissected already'.

That was my favourite bit