Anarchy means "without ruler" in Greek, right? Now, is there really such thing? Even down to the smallest state, the "state of one", an individual is its own ruler, and is monopolizing a bit of territory at any given moment. Thoughts?
It means "without ruler" as anarchists tend to use it. One can distinguish that with a comparatively benign sense of "leader".
Brainpolice: It means "without ruler" as anarchists tend to use it. One can distinguish that with a comparatively benign sense of "leader".
OK edited it. Thanks.
The state, as a corporation, doesn't have rulers. It does not recognize the rule of any other state or sovereign above itself. The only law it abides to is the international law that is agreed to uphold out of reciprocity.
This is why the current order of nation-states is an "anarchy of states".
See the article "Do we ever really get out of anarchy?"
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Jackson LaRose: Anarchy means "without ruler" in Greek, right? Now, is there really such thing? Even down to the smallest state, the "state of one", an individual is its own ruler, and is monopolizing a bit of territory at any given moment. Thoughts?
No. I do think that civilized society strives for voluntary hiearchy. Humans seem to need Hiearchies to operate, and good hiearchies can be good for the lessers and the betters. There is no way of determening that though if there is involuntary hiearchies.
So I would want a society that allowed for co-existence between people individuals, and competition between hiearchies. This means property rights, division of labor, competition. There are huge benefits to these institutions.
This isn't "Anarchy" though, it is Capitalism. The state is just one giant fixed hiearchy, that can't be challenged or checked, and which everyone has to consider when they take action. That is why I want it to go. It is also completely inconsistent with property rights in a legal sense in my opinion.
Jackson LaRose:Anarchy means "without ruler" in Greek, right? Now, is there really such thing? Even down to the smallest state, the "state of one", an individual is its own ruler, and is monopolizing a bit of territory at any given moment. Thoughts?
If you define "ruler" in a certain way, then yes, there's no such thing as anarchy, since every individual is their own ruler. Or if you define "ruler" as synonymous with aggressor, then anarchy makes sense, since you could have a society without aggressors (or at least institutionalized aggression).
I prefer to define anarchy as the absence of government, which leaves open a range of possibilities, from Hobbesian jungle to market anarchy.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage:I prefer to define anarchy as the absence of government,
How would you define government?
Land ownership is a monopoly; only one seller. Not a mini-state. A state has absolute authority. There is no limit in principle to what it can do. Some examples of a mini-state: (a) you subscribe to magazines, utilities, etc., then sit on your roof with a rifle and shoot the deliverers/reps as they step onto your driveway. (b) You invite your best friend into your house, then immediately handcuff him, beat him senseless and waterboard and electroshock him in the basement for suspected terrorism- or just for fun. Essentially, you don't need a reason to do anything and nothing is unreasonable within a space.
The Hellenistic use of the word and concept is a bit more complex, if you want me to attempt to supply you with the meanings, concepts, and perceptions of the concept of anarchy in the classical Greek context, I will try to do that for you (Note, I have only been studying the Greek language for just under six months, so I am no expert).
That being said, I think it may be best to use what the "precedent and spirit" of the word means, in it's current context. So while in the most literal sense it may be an imposability, it stil means something. Think of it as more of a poetic type term with a precedent than a term trying to be "objectivly exact". Or perhaps a more proper definition of it's current use: " dramaticly against law, rule, and hierarchy as is normally defined by any other government type, or used in any society"
Anarchy means without ruler between human beings (or other moral agents).
So yes, there is such a thing. For example, you don't rule me and I don't rule you. Simple enough!
Jackson LaRose:How would you define government?
Something like Long's definition:
A legal system is any institution or set of institutions in a given society that provides dispute resolution in a systematic and reasonably predictable way. It does so through the exercise of three functions: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. The judicial function, the adjudication of disputes, is the core of any legal system; the other two are ancillary to this. The legislative function is to determine the rules that will govern the process of adjudication (this function may be merged with the judicial function, as when case law arises through precedents, or it may be exercised separately), while the executive function is to secure submission (through a variety of means, which may or may not include violence) to the adjudicative process and compliance with its verdicts. A government ... is any organisation that claims, and in large part achieves, a forcibly maintained monopoly, within a given geographical territory, of these legal functions, and in particular of the use of force in the executive function. (p.1)
Well, some believe that “anarchy” actually derives form ancient Sumerian: the rule of the Anunaki (anua-rchy).
But more seriously, I’ve discussed elsewhere that states (and hence, anarchy) cannot be defined in a situation where there’s no private property. When there is private property, than “anarchy’ simply means that al stick to the rules of property acquisition. As long as the ‘state’ gets its land from voluntary relinquishment and not forced appropriation, and does not forbid anyone form leaving, it ceases to be a state, notwithstanding what sick laws it might impose on its own territory. So, there can be anarchy just as much as there can potentially be no distinction among the property rights we give different guys: entirely possible. Whether it is profitable, besides being possible, depends on other factors.
Yes, I think there is a point where the definition breaks down: either at the individual level, the family level, the extended family, etc. I'm going to reluctantly link one my very first posts here, talking about definitions.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8559/223134.aspx
Words tend to break down at the boundaries, because they were coined in a certain context and were never intended to be used at the extremes. I basically just define anarchy as the lack of a territorial monopoly ala Long's definition that Sage posted above.
Why anarchy fails
Merlin:Well, some believe that “anarchy” actually derives form ancient Sumerian: the rule of the Anunaki (anua-rchy).
Wow, I hope the winged lizards make you a gold mine slave for that one.
Merlin:But more seriously, I’ve discussed elsewhere that states (and hence, anarchy) cannot be defined in a situation where there’s no private property. When there is private property, than “anarchy’ simply means that al stick to the rules of property acquisition. As long as the ‘state’ gets its land from voluntary relinquishment and not forced appropriation, and does not forbid anyone form leaving, it ceases to be a state, notwithstanding what sick laws it might impose on its own territory. So, there can be anarchy just as much as there can potentially be no distinction among the property rights we give different guys: entirely possible. Whether it is profitable, besides being possible, depends on other factors.
Interesting point.
AJ: Jackson LaRose: Anarchy means "without ruler" in Greek, right? Now, is there really such thing? Even down to the smallest state, the "state of one", an individual is its own ruler, and is monopolizing a bit of territory at any given moment. Thoughts? Yes, I think there is a point where the definition breaks down: either at the individual level, the family level, the extended family, etc. I'm going to reluctantly link one my very first posts here, talking about definitions. http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8559/223134.aspx Words tend to break down at the boundaries, because they were coined in a certain context and were never intended to be used at the extremes. I basically just define anarchy as the lack of a territorial monopoly ala Long's definition that Sage posted above.
I'll have to check it out. Interesting points, me likee semantic confusion (not)!