Is Anarchy a form of Tyranny?

[Thorthoth]

You're both idiots.

I just already gave both the definition of anarchy and my interpretation of the meaning in real politics.
anarchy is when a group or individual is in opposition to law and government either in direct conflict, secretive subversion or if possible in non-contact.
The 'anarchist group will still have it's own rules and government, almost certainly hierarchical even if some democratic practices (i.e. voting) are incorporated.

My position has not changed. A Tyrant may well perceive his opposition as anarchistic, though terms such as 'criminal', 'terrorist', 'enemy' or 'scofflaw' may be more accurate.

Some people with anti-government bias interpret small, relatively simple social constructs as anarchistic, but even a group as small as a family unit will have rules and hierarchy. The situation may be 'utopian' (or not...) but it is not anarchistic.

It's a definition of anarchism so banal as to be inconsequential, or as a essentially so secretive as to be subversive.

If the definition of anarchy doesn't excite you, I suppose you will just buy into a mythology about it as so many before have done. The truth is you are ruled by many things and people. Your dream of complete freedom and lack of government is just a dream, and a foggy one at that.

[Symmetry]

If the definition of anarchy doesn't excite you, I suppose you will just buy into a mythology about it as so many before have done. The truth is you are ruled by many things and people. Your dream of complete freedom and lack of government is just a dream, and a foggy one at that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I neither buy into your crude dictionary definition, nor a a mythology. Your dream of a perfect definition of anarchism hasn't held up, dude.

It breaks down whenever it's encountered. "The Definition". I guess it doesn't excite me. I never thought it should though.

[Thorthoth]

anarchism is not a form of government. It is only used as a term for a group under one form of rule that is in opposition to another differently-governed group. Neither group is without some form of rule, thus neither is truly anarchistic.

[Symmetry]

anarchism is not a form of government. It is only used as a term for a group under one form of rule that is in opposition to another differently-governed group. Neither group is without some form of rule, thus neither is truly anarchistic.

If it's a group term, encompassing many different types, why do you oppose it as a whole?

[Thorthoth]

It's a subjective judgement call, and based on the word's actual definition, an inaccurate one. There are better words to use. I already listed several. Scroll up.

[Symmetry]

anarchism is not a form of government. It is only used as a term for a group under one form of rule that is in opposition to another differently-governed group. Neither group is without some form of rule, thus neither is truly anarchistic.

If it's a group term, encompassing many different types, why do you oppose it as a whole?

It's a subjective judgement call, and based on the word's actual definition, an inaccurate one. There are better words to use. I already listed several. Scroll up.

You seem a bit wary of providing a definition, but very much opposed to it. Would it be fair to say that you're opposition is hazy, at best?

[Dukasaur]

I don't intend to provide any scholarly references because I simply cannot afford to invest that much time in this debate. I would like to put in my two cents' worth, however, so I'll just take a chance that you may decide to pay attention or you may not, lack of citation notwithstanding.

The two definitions of anarchy break down into what I would call the pessimistic and optimistic view.

The pessimistic, or 'Hobbesian' view, is that man is basically evil and only the construct of government prevents us from engaging in an endless orgy of murder, rape, and pillage. This view is also supported by most Christian commentators, who tend to be intrinsically pessimistic about Man due to the doctrine of Original Sin.

The optimistic or 'radical libertarian' view, is that man is basically good and only the construct of government with its games of divide and conquer sets men at each other's throats and drives them to murder, rape and pillage. It contends that without government manipulation, people will naturally look for ways to co-operate for the mutual benefit.

People who hold the pessimistic view tend to sneer at the optimistic view as being "utopian" or "wildly unrealistic", but the undiluted pessimistic view is equally unrealistic. Examples abound of situations where governments ceased to function, at least for a limited time in a limited place, and both views can find plenty of anecdotal evidence to support their view. There are numerous examples of the brutish idea of anarchy, and there are also numerous examples of the beneficent idea of anarchy. The one thing that's lacking is an example of anarchy that went on long enough to really see its long-term effects.

Because interestingly, both soon revert to some form of government. The brutish form of anarchy becomes a dictatorship very quickly. Robbers can't be content to be freelance for long -- they soon declare themselves "Emperor" or some thing and make the robbery institutional. At the same time, spontaneous mutual-aid groups can't be content to remain spontaneous -- they soon create a "Council" or some such nonsense and make the mutual-aiding institutional. Perhaps the human mind is incapable of being satisfied with informal relationships and has to formalize them as soon as possible. So, it may be fruitless to debate the different views of anarchy. Anarchy may be like the transition state of a chemical reaction -- just a turn in the road between A and B, but never a destination.

[Thorthoth]

@ Sym. You're just being your usual obtuse idiot self.
@ Duk, That's what I was saying. The two states of society are government and conflict. The term 'anarchy' is sometimes used to describe the conflict stage and sometimes misapplied to describe simple quasi-utopian government. Since the term is thus both ambiguous and mostly incorrect, it would be wise to describe such situations in other ways.

[Dukasaur]

@ Sym. You're just being your usual obtuse idiot self.
@ Duk, That's what I was saying. The two states of society are government and conflict. The term 'anarchy' is sometimes used to describe the conflict stage and sometimes misapplied to describe simple quasi-utopian government. Since the term is thus both ambiguous and mostly incorrect, it would be wise to describe such situations in other ways.

No, no, no, no! You don't get to cherry pick the part of my post that you liked and pretend I'm agreeing with you.

What I said was, there is just as much evidence for the optimistic view of anarchy as there is for the pessimistic view. So, while the pessimists might say "the two states of society are government and conflict", the optimists might say "the two states of society are government and co-operation."

My conclusion was that it is a transition stage from one governmental era to another, but I did not lend any credence to the theory that the transition stage is necessarily evil.

[tzor]

So, is anarchy a form of tyranny?

Anarchy tends to be an unstable system. As a result it tends to degrade into the simplest form of stability which is tyranny.

Mind you anarchy tends to be unstable because it is not planned. It is the result of simply collapsing the existing government structure.

Planned anarchy is an abstract concept never attempted in practice, although I'm sure the Anarcho-capitalists have wet dreams about seeing that in reality.

[Symmetry]

So, is anarchy a form of tyranny?

Anarchy tends to be an unstable system. As a result it tends to degrade into the simplest form of stability which is tyranny.

Mind you anarchy tends to be unstable because it is not planned. It is the result of simply collapsing the existing government structure.

Planned anarchy is an abstract concept never attempted in practice, although I'm sure the Anarcho-capitalists have wet dreams about seeing that in reality.

Anarchy is perfectly tenable. It's probably the best kind of relationship you can have. A marriage, for example, where both partners are equal.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't intend to provide any scholarly references because I simply cannot afford to invest that much time in this debate. I would like to put in my two cents' worth, however, so I'll just take a chance that you may decide to pay attention or you may not, lack of citation notwithstanding.

The two definitions of anarchy break down into what I would call the pessimistic and optimistic view.

The pessimistic, or 'Hobbesian' view, is that man is basically evil and only the construct of government prevents us from engaging in an endless orgy of murder, rape, and pillage. This view is also supported by most Christian commentators, who tend to be intrinsically pessimistic about Man due to the doctrine of Original Sin.

The optimistic or 'radical libertarian' view, is that man is basically good and only the construct of government with its games of divide and conquer sets men at each other's throats and drives them to murder, rape and pillage. It contends that without government manipulation, people will naturally look for ways to co-operate for the mutual benefit.

People who hold the pessimistic view tend to sneer at the optimistic view as being "utopian" or "wildly unrealistic", but the undiluted pessimistic view is equally unrealistic. Examples abound of situations where governments ceased to function, at least for a limited time in a limited place, and both views can find plenty of anecdotal evidence to support their view. There are numerous examples of the brutish idea of anarchy, and there are also numerous examples of the beneficent idea of anarchy. The one thing that's lacking is an example of anarchy that went on long enough to really see its long-term effects.

Because interestingly, both soon revert to some form of government. The brutish form of anarchy becomes a dictatorship very quickly. Robbers can't be content to be freelance for long -- they soon declare themselves "Emperor" or some thing and make the robbery institutional. At the same time, spontaneous mutual-aid groups can't be content to remain spontaneous -- they soon create a "Council" or some such nonsense and make the mutual-aiding institutional. Perhaps the human mind is incapable of being satisfied with informal relationships and has to formalize them as soon as possible. So, it may be fruitless to debate the different views of anarchy. Anarchy may be like the transition state of a chemical reaction -- just a turn in the road between A and B, but never a destination.

So really the thread should be titled: is optimism a form of tyranny? That way you and thorthoth would be in perfect agreement.

Co-operation for mutual benefit is government. Even before committees and stuff are formed. It may be non-state government but it still is some factor being governed. The governance is what makes the government, not the formal recognition of the governance. I agree with your final conclusion though.

Don't worry about your sources, I've got Hobbes on the list and eventually will get to Marx and Engels too, who hold the optimistic position (ironically).

So, is anarchy a form of tyranny?

Anarchy tends to be an unstable system. As a result it tends to degrade into the simplest form of stability which is tyranny.

Mind you anarchy tends to be unstable because it is not planned. It is the result of simply collapsing the existing government structure.

Planned anarchy is an abstract concept never attempted in practice, although I'm sure the Anarcho-capitalists have wet dreams about seeing that in reality.

Anarchy is perfectly tenable. It's probably the best kind of relationship you can have. A marriage, for example, where both partners are equal.

That's not anarchy, it's pure democracy.

[Symmetry]

How so?

[DoomYoshi]

Because each person has a direct, equal share in the voting/governance process.

[Symmetry]

Because each person has a direct, equal share in the voting/governance process.

But if nobody is the leader that's anarchy. Literally so-

Etymology. The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

[tzor]

Anarchy is perfectly tenable. It's probably the best kind of relationship you can have. A marriage, for example, where both partners are equal.

That's not exactly an "anarchy." In fact the very notion of a marriage is unstable in an anarchy (absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal) since it requires two individuals with "absolute freedom" to continue to agree to, on their own free will, to the relationship. The institution of marriage itself is a device that moves the two away from anarchy. Equality of relationship does not mean anarchy.)

[Symmetry]

Anarchy is perfectly tenable. It's probably the best kind of relationship you can have. A marriage, for example, where both partners are equal.

That's not exactly an "anarchy." In fact the very notion of a marriage is unstable in an anarchy (absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal) since it requires two individuals with "absolute freedom" to continue to agree to, on their own free will, to the relationship. The institution of marriage itself is a device that moves the two away from anarchy. Equality of relationship does not mean anarchy.)

An interesting suggestion- that people who reject the idea of leadership are unable to form permanent bonds. Anarchism, of course, does not mean absolute freedom, so I remain a tad sceptical.

[tzor]

But if nobody is the leader that's anarchy. Literally so-

Etymology. The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

Your thus is wrong. Let's look at that again "ruler, leader, authority." Authority can be rule of law. But who really cares, this is a 19th century term borrowed from the Greek to make it sound cool.

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government. It can also designate a nation (or anywhere on earth that is inhabited) that has no system of government or central rule.

So true Anarchy has no system of government. It's not everyone is equal, but that everyone is independent and self supreme. In fact everyone is their own leader in an anarchy.

[waauw]

Anarchy is only tenable in tiny societies.

[Symmetry]

But if nobody is the leader that's anarchy. Literally so-

Etymology. The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders".

Your thus is wrong. Let's look at that again "ruler, leader, authority." Authority can be rule of law. But who really cares, this is a 19th century term borrowed from the Greek to make it sound cool.

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people, or a single person that rejects hierarchy.[1] The word originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840 Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy: anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations. In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government. It can also designate a nation (or anywhere on earth that is inhabited) that has no system of government or central rule.

So true Anarchy has no system of government. It's not everyone is equal, but that everyone is independent and self supreme. In fact everyone is their own leader in an anarchy.

So you reject any idea of anarchy that allows for for relationships, or love, or inter-dependency. That seems like a very narrow view.

[DoomYoshi]

Families have governments just like states have governments. Anarchy could be the form of government in a family, but it isn't what you described.

It's not like we're rejecting that love exists, just that the love usually results in a case of spontaneous government.

It's like there are two basic units that are both micro-governments: the gang of hoodlums and the family unit. Macro examples of both these cases result in government as we know it. The gang of hoodlums is illustrated by the pessimists and the family by the optimists.

[Symmetry]

Families have governments just like states have governments. Anarchy could be the form of government in a family, but it isn't what you described.

Perhaps you could quote the description you disagree with? Free floating comments are sometimes difficult to parse.

[DoomYoshi]

Families have governments just like states have governments. Anarchy could be the form of government in a family, but it isn't what you described.

Perhaps you could quote the description you disagree with? Free floating comments are sometimes difficult to parse.

A marriage where both partners are equal. There are still rulers and ruled. It is either both in turn or both at once, so not anarchy.

[Symmetry]

Families have governments just like states have governments. Anarchy could be the form of government in a family, but it isn't what you described.

Perhaps you could quote the description you disagree with? Free floating comments are sometimes difficult to parse.

A marriage where both partners are equal. There are still rulers and ruled. It is either both in turn or both at once, so not anarchy.

Or more accurately, a very narrow type of anarchy. "Rulers and ruled" is a pretty cynical view of marital relationships, or relationships in general.

Do you really disagree with the idea of partnership?

[DoomYoshi]

I'm not taking your bait, you master baiter, you.