[mum]

Business, just like labour is how people make a living.

[Rothbardian]

Then so are businesses.

If someone makes an idiotic claim like 'killing is wrong unless you work for apple because ipads give me the right to kill' then sure.

[Kapanda]

Anarchy fails in two ways:

1. It is unstable. This one is hard to dispute.
2. It rejects the need for leadership. It is certainly a philosophical difference, but there is such a notion as the belief that humans ought to be led by those particularly capable of such.

[Eran]

1. It is unstable. This one is hard to dispute.

Actually, it is easy to dispute. Under the appropriate preconditions, anarchy can be stable, just as under inappropriate conditions, a democracy can evidently be unstable.

2. It rejects the need for leadership. It is certainly a philosophical difference, but there is such a notion as the belief that humans ought to be led by those particularly capable of such.

False. It doesn't.

What it rejects (at least in its right-wing form) is the need, legitimacy or efficacy of leadership based on aggression, coercion or force. Leadership based on persuasion, on the other hand, is not antithetical to libertarian anarchy.

Examples of such leadership include business contexts but also religious leaders and leaders of advocacy campaigns.

[Someone5]

Anarchy fails in two ways:

1. It is unstable. This one is hard to dispute.
2. It rejects the need for leadership. It is certainly a philosophical difference, but there is such a notion as the belief that humans ought to be led by those particularly capable of such.

Except, of course, there are no humans who are "particularly capable" of leading millions of people.

[Kapanda]

Actually, it is easy to dispute. Under the appropriate preconditions, anarchy can be stable, just as under inappropriate conditions, a democracy can evidently be unstable.

False. It doesn't.

What it rejects (at least in its right-wing form) is the need, legitimacy or efficacy of leadership based on aggression, coercion or force. Leadership based on persuasion, on the other hand, is not antithetical to libertarian anarchy.

Examples of such leadership include business contexts but also religious leaders and leaders of advocacy campaigns.

On its instability, a minor reading of history is enough to show it is.

In fact, it is one of the simple points in war strategy: weaken leadership. If leadership requires complete consensus to operate, it is already weak.

On the rejection of leadership, while it may not reject all forms of leadership, if complete consensus is required for leadership to function, then that is an extremely weak and limited leadership function.

[Eran]

On its instability, a minor reading of history is enough to show it is.

A reading of history would merely reveal that the preconditions required for a stable anarchy have not yet occurred.

And what of it? The preconditions for a stable representative democracy (in its modern sense) have not occurred prior to the American Revolution. There is a first time for everything.

On the rejection of leadership, while it may not reject all forms of leadership, if complete consensus is required for leadership to function, then that is an extremely weak and limited leadership function.

A complete consensus is rarely if every required for leadership to function.

For example, revolutionary leaders have lead successful revolutions despite not having the power of government on their side (prior to the successful resolution of the revolution), and despite never enjoying a consensus support.

[anticlimacus]

On its instability, a minor reading of history is enough to show it is.

This is also patently false. Eran is correct that there has been no modern anarchist society, but there have been particular attempts at it (the Paris Commune, anarchist Spain). But beyond that every society has shown successful attempts at organization without the use of the state, such as in academies, clubs, various religious institutions, etc.

The idea that the state simply must exist in order to create stability, I think, is ironically assumed because of the very instability states tend to create in the first place--such as institutional slavery or racism or supporting corporate monopolies; and then the fact that it uses its own power to discipline and keep everybody in line is used as an argument that the state is necessary to keep order. It's a circular argument, indeed. It's only if we assume the conditions of instability that modern states produce as natural that we argue that the state needs to exist in order to keep order. However, why assume those conditions? Those are the very conditions, inequality, hierarchical domination, and unjustified authority, that anarchism seeks to overcome.

[Kapanda]

The America example was... odd.

Clearly, America's system was one of evolution. They heavily borrowed from contemporary philosophers and existing democratic systems (and previous). Second of all, arguable whether America is the first "modern democracy" as he puts it. Which is enough to difute this notion that "there is a first for everything" (in the context of this discussion).

An anarchic state would have no precedent. All the systems of governance we witness today have millenia old predecessors.

Of course it is impossible to prove it cannot happen - which is what you guys are alluding to. In governance, however, while ideals remain acceptable as goals to strive for, to have a sense of stability inherently requires touch with reality. For thousands of years of humanity, no anarchic system proved stable enough to survive any significant period of time [this is where you can come in and prove me wrong with facts]. To say that "it just hasn't happened yet" is to de facto recognise that it is a highly improbable possibility - rendering anarchism irrelevant in all senses but that of a potential ideal goal.

[Eran]

An anarchic state would have no precedent. All the systems of governance we witness today have millenia old predecessors.

Nobody seriously expects an anarchic society to emerge abruptly from a current statist society.

Imagine, rather, an evolutionary process whereby the scope of what is considered legitimate state action is gradually diminished (compare, for example, with the gradual process whereby the scope of legitimate monarch action in the UK has diminished over the centuries).

Start with today's constitutional democracy, in which the constitution already limits legitimate state action in certain areas (e.g. freedom of religion). Now imagine constitutional amendments that strengthen individual and property rights, e.g. by making the criminalisation of victimless crimes unconstitutional, by constitutionally prohibiting income and property taxes, etc.

The "end-game" of this process is a libertarian anarchy, arrived at gradually.

[Kapanda]

You missed the other part of my premise: such a system is so unstable, that before the end goal comes to place, society retracts to something more stable.

And I am substantiating that claim by saying that unlike all systems governing societies today (known and mainstream, not a population 40 island in the middle of the Pacific), anarchy has no precedent in history.

The notes on lack of leadership, etc, were made on the pragmatic presumption that practical leadership is illusory under the anarchic system. That there is a theoretical possibility that it could work, logic leads us all to accept it. Practice shows that such theoretical positions are highly improbable of happening.

[Eran]

You missed the other part of my premise: such a system is so unstable, that before the end goal comes to place, society retracts to something more stable.

Let me address the question of stability.

Anybody following recent events in Egypt can tell that democracies aren't guaranteed to be stable. Why are the United States and Britain so stable that a military coup is all but unthinkable, while in Egypt (and countless other countries) it is a real possibility?

And I am substantiating that claim by saying that unlike all systems governing societies today (known and mainstream, not a population 40 island in the middle of the Pacific), anarchy has no precedent in history.

This is a weak argument. It could have been used to rule out the possibility of any number of other political innovations, from constitutional monarchy to representative republic, from giving women the vote to religious liberty. Each of those had a first in history. Before that first, your argument would have shown that it is impossible.

There are good reasons why anarchy is rare (though not unheard of - examples include medieval Ireland and Iceland). Government is a very convenient tool in the hands of a ruling elite. It legitimises their greedy acts of aggression. When powers rise which are strong enough to challenge existing government, they are highly unlikely to give up the big prize - running government themselves. The temptation to "do good" is just too great.

A not-coincidental analogy is in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings ring. Gandalf refused to take the ring, citing the temptation associated with its power. Tolkien may well have meant the ring to serve as an analogy to government.

The notes on lack of leadership, etc, were made on the pragmatic presumption that practical leadership is illusory under the anarchic system.

But that is patently wrong. There are countless examples of people exerting strong and influential leadership without enjoying political office.

That includes all revolutionary leaders (before they took over reigns of government), all business leaders (Steve Jobs), most religious leaders (the Pope or Dalai Lama) and many social campaigners (Martin Luther King comes to mind), and some intellectuals (Marx).

[Kapanda]

(Now we are having a discussion!)

Let me address the question of stability.

Anybody following recent events in Egypt can tell that democracies aren't guaranteed to be stable. Why are the United States and Britain so stable that a military coup is all but unthinkable, while in Egypt (and countless other countries) it is a real possibility?

No 100% guarantees in this World, but I thought it implicit in the point I made that it is the probability of instability that is diminished in virtually every other system outside of anarchy.

This is a weak argument. It could have been used to rule out the possibility of any number of other political innovations, from constitutional monarchy to representative republic, from giving women the vote to religious liberty. Each of those had a first in history. Before that first, your argument would have shown that it is impossible.

The ones you mentioned, as was my point above, evolved from an existing system. But you did allude earlier that the expectation you have is of a given freedom to be granted one step at a time.

I concede that here, it seems to be a matter of different expectations. I expect that any significant step towards an anarchic state would never last long. Be it for the reasons you mentioned, of power-greedy elites, or any other reason. I am of the opinion that people want to be led. The masses fantasise about complete freedom, but they would rather an overseer made certain decisions for them, and managed certain things in their life.

But that is patently wrong. There are countless examples of people exerting strong and influential leadership without enjoying political office.

Could it be that my concept of anarchy is wrong? I understand of anarchy as that system which lacks a power structure.

In any case, the notion that leadership exists outside formal power channels today does not prove your point. It is not being argued that influence requires official political office. It is being argued that a functioning society does not last long without a formal power structure.

EDIT: The instability does not necessarily mean that society would collapse: it means it would, in some mechanism, revert to one of formal power structures.

But the main point in my argument regarding leadership - which I forgot myself in the midst of the discussion - is that Anarchy preoccupies itself with freedom and the will of the individual. Leadership requires complete consensus, since, supposedly, an individual uninterested in leadership simply leaves. If a contract is signed, then we have a formal power system set up. If a contract is not signed and the individual as the option to leave, then again stands my point of the irrelevance of leadership under anarchism.

[Eran]

No 100% guarantees in this World, but I thought it implicit in the point I made that it is the probability of instability that is diminished in virtually every other system outside of anarchy.

How would you know?

Experience shows that stability of any system requires appropriate norms within the population. That holds for both democracy and anarchy.

You are judging the prospective stability of anarchy given current societal norms. That is a mistake. Under current societal norms, anarchy couldn't arise in the first place, and would, indeed, be unstable if imposed.

Anarchy requires certain changes in norms to arise in the first place. But with those changes, it is inherently more stable than any other form of government.

I expect that any significant step towards an anarchic state would never last long.

In the arena of religious practice, the US has been practising anarchy for centuries now. This particular step towards anarchy seems to have lasted long enough.

The same holds with respect to (consensual) sexual practices (at least between adults).

How about the anarchy of the Internet (and, before it, the press)? Compared with the tight government control over publishing a few centuries ago, who would have expected that anarchy to last?

So you see, we have made any number of successful and long-lasting steps towards anarchy, by which I mean excluding government intervention from various areas of life.

I am of the opinion that people want to be led. The masses fantasise about complete freedom, but they would rather an overseer made certain decisions for them, and managed certain things in their life.

There is no contradiction between wanting to be led, and a state of anarchy. Many Catholics feel led by the Pope. Yet the Pope has no coercive power over them. People who want to be led can easily find people willing, even happy, to lead them.

Could it be that my concept of anarchy is wrong? I understand of anarchy as that system which lacks a power structure.

I guess that depends on what you call "power structure". There are disputes amongst self-described anarchists. I am of the school that defines anarchy literally as "absence of government", with "government" having the normal definition along the lines of "an organization successfully holding a monopoly over the legitimised use of force in a given territory".

Voluntarily-accepted power structures (such as those between employer and employee, believers and religious leaders, etc.) can certainly exist within the society that I advocate, and which I would characterise as "anarchy".

Leadership requires complete consensus, since, supposedly, an individual uninterested in leadership simply leaves. If a contract is signed, then we have a formal power system set up. If a contract is not signed and the individual as the option to leave, then again stands my point of the irrelevance of leadership under anarchism.

Contracts are certainly part of the system I am advocating, though they primarily impact questions of (external) property. Even having signed a contract, most libertarian legal thinkers believe an individual can still leave, albeit potentially forfeiting property in the process.

I don't understand your point about "irrelevance of leadership under anarchism". Leadership requires complete consensus of the people choosing to be led, not of members of society overall. But why would that make the leadership irrelevant? If a majority, or even a large and motivated minority, choose to follow a leader, that leader is far from being irrelevant. Was Martin Luther King Junior "irrelevant" because his leadership was entirely voluntarily?