Actually, such places like Somalia, Gaza, Afghanistan, etc. - where there's no real government are even formally called fourth world, not even third.

Last time we had such a global-scale period of anarchy was after the Roman Empire fell... and half of mankind missed half a dozen centuries.

@Dingle: Why would things start breaking down? Here is what would happen if a first-world country went into anarchy: People would start living in communities that share their values. For example, If you lived in a good, Christian community, and you were accused of killing someone, the community would hire a private detective to prove you killed someone, and then you would be turned over, by force (which the community hired), to a private jail. That person would probably try to also hire a force to defend him until the group providing the force sees enough evidence to convict the person, in which case they would let him go to jail, because if they don't, they would have a bad image and lose customers, and would be engaged in a costly war with the community's group.

Wow, that was a run-on sentence. But anyway, now that I explained my side, you can try to explain why things will break down without government.

@C-man "any country without a stable government is a third-world country" does that include Belgium?

Belgium doesn't have a stable government?

@Conservative Man

"For example, If you lived in a good, Christian community, and you were accused of killing someone, the community would hire a private detective to prove you killed someone, and then you would be turned over, by force (which the community hired), to a private jail. That person would probably try to also hire a force to defend him until the group providing the force sees enough evidence to convict the person, in which case they would let him go to jail, because if they don't, they would have a bad image and lose customers, and would be engaged in a costly war with the community's group."

Are you describing the formation of a governments and how wars started? :)

Let me put it this way - do you think there should be laws, order or any rules? So, who's going to draft, approve and implement them? Or you just want to have a referendum for everything. There's a place like this - it's called Switzerland - but they also have a government.

As a non-Christian, would I have any rights? I don't want to live in your Christian community - I'd rather live with a government that guarantees my rights. Thanks.

@Ivo: I don't want laws, but I do want order and rules. The rules would come from the way I described, which is not the formation of governments, but how anarchy would work. Private companies would enforce the rules that communities of like-minded people follow. If you want to be able to have sex in public, you can live in a community where people are having sex in public. The rules that the people in each community follow are enforced by companies that are hired. People could also hire these companies to defend themselves if they are accused of breaking a rule. The order in society would come from these rules that are enforced by companies. But there would be no laws as there would be no government.

@Dingle- I don't think you quite understood what I meant. You could also live in a non-Christian community, with a different set of rules and a different company to enforce those rules. Also, I feel sorry for you if you think government guarantees your rights. All government does is take away you're rights by limiting what you can do.

"Currently, any country without a stable government is a third-world country. I don't want to live there. Once a first-world country doesn't have a government, I would move there without hesitation. (and it will happen eventually)"

This is my favourite statement ever! It stares right into the truth and somehow refuses to acknowledge it. =)

I have to admit that anarchy may work on a small scale with a very tight knit community, because peer pressure can be a very potent enforcer, especially when the option is alienation from the community and the benefits. It simply wouldn't work for any community of significant size, that is, probably over 150 people. The other problem is with no monopoly on violence, intergroup violence would be rampant as each group must enforce their own rights. The trend of decline in violence over human history is in large part due to greater monopolization of violence by state governments. You can look at any situation in which persons must enforce their own rights, and you can see the violence inherent in it. The Cosa Nostra cannot depend on the police to enforce their property rights for obvious reasons, and as a result they must maintain a strong reputation for punishing those who cross them. If they cannot credibly threaten to enforce their own property rights, those property rights effectively cease to exist.

I know Sicarius believes that property is theft, and that his gift economy is somehow without a pricing system... but I won't debate those again unless he brings them up again. =P

@C-man
The Belgians have a long running dispute over languages which keeps bringing down the government: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/belgium-government-brought-down-language-liberals. An election would be the normal reaction but they can't call one until the language issue is solved = impasse. Sounds like your kind of place + the beer is good.

Apart from that, in your vision of a community employing private contractors who will commision and direct the contractors? All members of the community or a sub-set of them? If the latter, who will these be? How will they be selected?

@Chrisp: I see your point about my statement, but the reason that statement is true is because 1st world governments are able to better control their population, with more technology and power. Your points on violence are intersting, and I'll admit, a government that has a monopoly on violence and that's it would be ideal, but those types of governments will inevitably gain power and eventually become like the governments of today.

@diplomat: Communities will form that already have the company they want to hire in mind, so everyone will like the company (if they don't, they can move). No one will direct the company, it will just enforce the rules of the community.

@Conservative Man

May I ask you one simple question. Why don't you gather 150 other people, who think like you, and just go somewhere and form your own community.

I am not going to go into detail explaining why all you've said is, effectively, an explanation of how governments were started. Wherever you live, it's a community, probably with millions of people, who have agreed on a certain set of rules that they will follow, and have a government to execute those, including hiring private security companies and so on.

You clearly cannot make the connection that what works and looks simple for 150 people will get much more complicated for 150 million or so - and I totally lost the part when technology was suddenly to blame - but I'm sure you can find a lot of your writing would fit perfectly to most western movies that have a sheriff protecting some mid-west town... surprise, surprise

Has it occurred to you that your 'system' only works if people don't move around. Because what will your pure Christian community do with me if I decided to make sex on the town square - because, you see, in my community that's accepted.

Yes, people decided to give governments power over violence because otherwise we'd have to deal with crazy maniacs who think they are right regardless of the arguments. And I don't want to have to go to arms every time I meet someone different.

However, there's one thing I like in your statements - "(if they don't, they can move)" - I'd suggest you come to the realization it's you that has to move - not everyone else :)

Get on a boat from Egypt to India and don't forget to write... oh, I forgot, places with no government have to utilities or communications infrastructure... well, we'll keep an eye on CNN :)

"May I ask you one simple question. Why don't you gather 150 other people, who think like you, and just go somewhere and form your own community."
The government wouldn't let me

"I am not going to go into detail explaining why all you've said is, effectively, an explanation of how governments were started. Wherever you live, it's a community, probably with millions of people, who have agreed on a certain set of rules that they will follow, and have a government to execute those, including hiring private security companies and so on."
When did I ever agree to follow the laws the government makes? I don't remember ever signing anything. They have no right to tell me what to do. In fact, I challenge you to come up with a reason they have the right to make laws.

"You clearly cannot make the connection that what works and looks simple for 150 people will get much more complicated for 150 million or so - and I totally lost the part when technology was suddenly to blame - but I'm sure you can find a lot of your writing would fit perfectly to most western movies that have a sheriff protecting some mid-west town... surprise, surprise"
Yes it would probably be complicated, but I still think it could work, with a few modification

"Has it occurred to you that your 'system' only works if people don't move around. Because what will your pure Christian community do with me if I decided to make sex on the town square - because, you see, in my community that's accepted."
My community's rule enforcing company would arrest you. When you are in another community, you abide by different rules.

"Get on a boat from Egypt to India and don't forget to write... oh, I forgot, places with no government have to utilities or communications infrastructure... well, we'll keep an eye on CNN :)"
Why would a country without a government have no utilities or infrastructue? Those can and should all be provided by private companies.

Oh, come on, really, you can't be that illiterate. If I told you that 2+2=4 would I have to prove it?

Whatever country you live in has some rules. If you don't like it move out, noone is keeping you. You said it yourself - if you don't like the community rules move to another one.

Are you arguing for the argument itself, or you really don't understand? If it's the second, sorry, but I have no time or energy for this. You heard something cool and repeat it without thinking, it's really annoying when the other side doesn't even bother to think.

I have thought this through a lot, so don't tell me I'm repeating something without thinking something. Anyway, the difference between my system and the way it is now is that in my system, you can move to a community with no rules, and even in communities with rules, there are no governments. The way it is now, to live without rules and government you would have to go by yourself to live in the middle of the ocean or Antarctica, hardly a good life. Although now I'll admit that I'm starting to think that even the community with rules idea is stupid, and it would be better to just have no rules anywhere. (Yes I'm serious) I think that that would be better as we have no one telling us to do. I'm sure you say that there would be chaos, but there would be. In fact, the prohibition era in the U.S. has shown that when you can't do something, it happens more.

Anyway, let's move out of this talk about how anarchy would work and start debating about how government is evil. We can start by you telling me what gives the government the right to rule over me? Because I really want to know.

I agree whole-heartedly with Conservative Man. It's obvious that being inherently good-natured Americans, we really have no need for a centralized government to "watch over us" and "take care of us". Why should I have to throw my tax dollars away to say, I don't know, fund some homeless shelter or local fire station. The government should have no right to claim what's rightfully mine, my money, and give it to someone who needs it more than I do. My parents were in the oil business and managed to do very well for themselves, allowing me to grow up in surroundings where all my accomodations were met. But why should the government punish me for my family's success and take away more of my money handed down to me? No, it's not fair at all, and definitely not what Christ would have wanted.

To go along with C-Man above, I believe that people are inherently good natured. Humans, left to themselves, will always do the right thing without government intervention. This has been proved historically time and time again. Why do I need the government to rule over me when it's obvious that me and all the people like me can make good decisions on our own?

@Spoof: Okay, I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but with text, you never know, so I'm going to wait for you to confirm that before I argue.

In the words of Doctor Cox: People are bastards. Bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.

I've heard Conservative Man's diatribe on how privatization of everything would solve everything... in his own way, he's just as utopian and unrealistic as your average Marxist.

I think he was the one who was advocating a privately run military that sounded to me like asking for the various Italian mercenaries to come back.... mercenaries, that I add, routinely raped and pillaged the area they were fighting in.... usually when they weren't paid, but sometimes just for shits and giggles when they were.

The prohibition era shows that you can't legislate against demand. It's not a large blanket covering all legislation. I'm actually in favour of smaller governments than that which is common in the Western world, but not because I believe governments are somehow evil conspiratorial agencies fundamentally concerned with increasing the governments influence... but because government policy is often inept, poorly designed, and only reacts to proximate causes, even if the policy is well intentioned.

The way most bad legislation comes to pass is simply because the more politically vocal, large, or rich groups get their interests crammed into law, without regard to other citizens that don't want it that way. A lot of it is purely reactionary. The media reports that drunk driving kills teens, and public demand surges for arbitrarily conceived anti-drunk driving legislation with little consideration for underlying cause or economic and social impact of the legislation. News report surfaces that some percentage of people are under the poverty line, and people come up with well intentioned but poorly designed legislation like minimum wage.

An effective society ought to be governed by the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority, and I'm afraid that in an anarchy, it will be the latter. The law would be made up and changed depending on if enough people will support the change, your rule enforcing company would comply if thats what the people wanted. If the majority of people in your community abhorred premarital sex, it wouldn't matter if you thought it harmed nobody, or that it was nobody's business, because you could be persecuted nonetheless. It's not as easy as simply moving to a more liberal community.

Society represents a constant compromise between your interests and the interests of others. You have to accept that other people have different opinions and beliefs and that in many cases these interests will be mutually exclusive to yours, in fact, with scarcity being an ever present factor, this is most certainly the case. I personally believe that people ought to be able to do what they like so long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right to life, liberty, and property, but I know a lot of people who feel that they should be able to impose their own personal morality on others, and they may succeed if the majority share that morality.

So, in your scenario, if my community decided to install a government that would be... illegal? or you're going to hire a private company from your community to fight my government? and what actually gives you the right to tell me that my community can have no government?


By the way, in case you didn't know, you're neither the center of the Universe nor does Time start with you. The place where you live had laws and government before you were born. So why should they change - again, if you don't like it leave - if you're going to stay you'll have to follow the rules.

As to the point of government being evil... this is just as idiotic as saying that education is evil. Which part exactly of the government is more evil - the postal service or the ministry of magic? :)

You know what, I'm going to argue anyway.
The government DOES NOT have a claim to what is yours, no matter what. It doesn't matter if someone needs it more it's your money. You should give some to charity, but that should be your decision, not the government's. You mentioned Jesus, I am a Christian, and I think, judging from the Bible, that Jesus would rather you choose to give to charity, than have someone make you do charity. Also, I think Jesus would rather you choose not to do something wrong, without the threat of going to jail, instead of only not doing something because it is against the law.
You also mention that some people need money more than you do. If you're talking about others in this country, then the reason they need money is almost always because they did not work hard enough. They could have worked harder, gotten better jobs, and gotten more money. With Government welfare and such, it actually encourages people to be lazy.
And to your last paragraph: That is horribly contradictive. Yes, people aren't always good. However, if people aren't good, then governments, made of people, won't be good either, so why would you want to be ruled by one.

Thank god we have Chrisp - how do you keep the patience to explain I will never know :)

That was at spoof by the way.
@Ivo: If a community wants to install a government, thay could, although that would be a stupid decision. But I said that I think now I am more for a society without those companies or any rules in a community. You should read my earlier post.
Oh, and I meant bad when I said evil. But I still challenge you to tell me what gives the government the right to tall me what to do?

@Chrisp: How is majority rules not Tyranny by majority. If decisions are made based on what the majority think, then the majority will be in control, and it would eventually become tyranny. (In fact, that's what it is now)

What part of Government is evil? ANY part that imposes itself, uninvited, upon your life that falls OUTSIDE the bounds of the Constitution, or that imposes upon what most consider to be their (God-given) rights, to give you a broad definition. Such things would include freedom of speech, which at various times comes under threat from the government.

You will find individuals on both sides of the fence that point at government and say it is acting unconstitutionally. The Patriot Act had people up in arms over the invasion of privacy, often quoting founders along such lines of securing "peace" at the price of liberty, as one example. Politicians digging into one person's pocket to give to another person would seem a violation of one's rights, and thus evil.

To suggest that a government can NOT be evil is simply naive and...not, it's more than naive. It's just flat out stupid and demonstrates a supreme ignorance of history. Not ALL government is evil, and not all governments are evil...but some are in all or in part.

@Chrisp: To further illustrate my point, I'll try to show why majority rules is stupid: Why should the many make the decisions for the few. I'll use abortion as an example:
To start, I am against abortion. I think they are horrible. However, in anarchy, people could still get them, and even though I don't like it, I'll let them do it. Now, in a democracy, let's say a majority of people want abortion banned. The ones that don't would have to follow the will of the majority, even though most of the majority doesn't even know or care about them. So how can it be good to have the will of the many imposed upon the few?
Note: I am not in any way condoning abortion; as I stated I hate abortion.

"@Ivo: If a community wants to install a government, thay could, although that would be a stupid decision. But I said that I think now I am more for a society without those companies or any rules in a community. You should read my earlier post.
Oh, and I meant bad when I said evil. But I still challenge you to tell me what gives the government the right to tall me what to do?"

Well, you said it - obviously the country (community) that you live have decided, a long time ago, to have a government. You came after - so you are secondary, nothing but a visitor of sorts - if you don't like it move out. That's how the US was formed in the first place. Strangely enough they also decided they need a government after kicking out the English.

And, by the way, the proper way to change things would be to go into politics, win, and then dissolve government if you wish, as long as people elect you with your 'anarchy' program.

So, the postal service is bad... could you elaborate a bit -bad in what sense - they do a crappy job, they are bad for your health, they are bad people? :)

Conservative Man, you do realize that it's only your money because the government enforces your property right. In the natural world, nobody intrinsically has any rights. It's simply through common consensus of people that they have decided that people have rights and people who violate such rights should be punished. Without enforcement, rights do not exist in any practical sense. You can moralize all you want, but you might say it's your money, but what if I say it's mine? Without an effective third party, we would come to blows. In anarchy, that third party is likely to simply be the majority. If I'm well liked and trusted by everyone and you're not, it doesn't so much matter what rights you think you have, because I'll have the means and motivation to make "your" money mine.

The law, as upheld by the government's monopoly of violence, while not perfect, represents the most effective third party in human history. Your property rights only exist because the government enforces it with money that comes from taxation. I agree with you that taxation can be thought of as immoral, but it is still necessary to a certain degree to maintain an effective and practical government. In an anarchy, you only have the right to your property as far as you can personally enforce it, and that often means resorting to extreme violence in order to maintain a strong reputation.

@krellin

We're talking about government as a form of social structure - not a specific government or specific people. If you want to play smart how about read what the argument is about first?