depends on the definition of anarchism that you are using. For right wing anarchism, or the so called "libertarianism" in the US, there is no benefit, just like there is no benefit for fascism. I have already argued in a formal debate why the comparison is legitimate.

as far as libertarian socialism is concerned, there are many variations and specific benefits. In general, you will have a lot more solidarity, diversity, self management and more equality than the society we have now.

__________________
Déjeme decirle, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor. Es imposible pensar en un revolucionario auténtico sin esta cualidad.

-- Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna

But in the act of organizing against the potential dictator, are they not nullifying their anarchic state and acting democraticly? One way or another, the power vacuum is filled.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Yes, good point. But is the notion of a direct democracy in conflict with the concept of no state? I don't think so really, for me they sit together nicely.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Anarchy, as I see it, is not defined as a positive but a negative. Anarchy is the lack of organization and state, and adding any kind of organization or loose direct democracy will make the term "anarchy" no longer applicable.

I see direct democracy and a very minimal state working, but the second you have a democracy you must define and protect the rights of the individual. If you don't, you can theoretically have a situation where the majority can vote to oppress or enslave the minority. I think we may see this after the US pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do not see anarchy working, any more than we will ever see true free market capitalism or true communism. We're just not wired that way.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

I apologize. I didn't see your reply on the other thread. So, here goes.

First, it should be realized that anarachy does not, in any way, imply chaos. To the contrary, I posit that there will be LESS chaos than under the current system. With out the governmnet screwing with the price system, running a central bank (yes, i realize that this is technically NOT a government institution, but this only increases the evilness of it; it is a private bank with gov't help) that brings on the business cycle, with out business regulation. All of these things lead straight to chaos.

Look at the USSR. Their system erupted and collapsed because of government intervention. And our system is destined for that. Everytime government passes one law, it must pass two more laws to "solve" a "market failure". This supposed 'market failure' is not a market failuire at all, but a government failure. For example, the gov't might say, "Milk is very important, everyone should have it. It is important. Therefore, milke should not rise above the price of X."

This causes two problems. First, people will use milk differently. If milk is cheaper than it was before the law, people will tend to buy more milk. But there hasn't really been any reason for the supply of milk to increase. This law has caused the demand curve to move to the right. Now that milk is cheaper, more milk is demanded.

The second problem comes from the supply side. The marginal milk producers will realize that they cannot sell their milk at a lower pirce than they currently offer. This will exclude them from the market. So now there is less milk.

So, the result is more milk is being demanded and there is a smaller supply. So, gov't may choose to ration milk, and put price ceilings on the higher order goods used to make the milk. This process can go on forever, and we eventually reach a pretty totalitarian state.

Another major objection to government is justice. In essence, gov't is a group of people who find it as their right to protect other people (or give this job to other people); in addtion to this, they feel that they are equally in the right to FORCE people to A) accept protection and B)pay for the protection.
If gov't exists to protect people's property, it certainly has a peculuar way of doing so. Forcfully taking money from one person to pay for the protection of his property is an odd idea. How can gov't claim to protect property when it constant steals to achieve this end?

Further, there is NO social contract. This is an absurd idea. Simply living in an area does not mean that a person has given his permission to be governed. Arguing that because a person moved into an area where gov't existed, and therefor he has agreed to gov't does not work. The question must first be asked, "Did gov't have a right to govern in the first place."? If the answer is "Yes," then the guy has to deal with gov't. If the answer is, "No," the guy has no moral onligation to follow gov't's edicts.

Now, in what cases would be answer be, "Yes,"? Well, if a person moves into a gated community, and, as a part of living there agrees to abide by the communites rules. This is voulantary gov't, and we take part in it everyday. At work, in clubs, in the family, etc.

How does this differ from the, "No" cases? To begin with, I have never ever agreed to follow gov't's edicts. Gov't simply tells me I have to, and if I don't I am arrested. Now, it might be argued that because I vote in elections or something, that I have agreed to be governed. This is a logical argument, but let me use a reductio. If a robber comes to my house and says, "Give me all you have,", I might 'bargin' with the robber to let me keep my watch. I could say that it is from my dad, it has sentimental value, etc. The robber, not being a complete jerk (or being suprised that I was home, and thus not thinking clearly) agrees. Now, the fact that I have been able to keep my watch, does not mean, in any way, that I have agreed to the rest of the robbery. The guy never had the right to my stuff, I have only succeeded in keeping my watch.

We can apply this to gov't. I might vote for a candidate who will help me keep my stuff. He might lower taxes, or do something else. But, this does not mean that I agree to the taxes that havn't been lowerd, I have simply decreasd the ammount that I have been taxed.

Another argument against anarchy is that criminals will roam the streets. Because there is no gov't, there are no laws, no courts, police, etc. This argument is also inocorrect.

To begin with, let us look at what police officers really do. Have you been to the mall? There aren't really any police officers. Malls (and other private entities) use some kind of securiyt officers. They have securiy people because they want their customers to feel safe. Sure, if there was a robbery, someone could call the cops, wait for the cops to show up, and then the cop could piece together 25 different stories. But after a few times of this, cusotmers are going to stop going to that mall. So, the mall owners have an incentive to keep their malls safe. And, this same logic can apply to everything in a post-state time. Because every place is privatly owned, then all people have an incentive to protect themselves.

Another question is what if a robbery takes place at someone's house? This is not owned by anyone other than the home owner, and a home owner cannot afford to have police protection 24/7. This can also be said about fire protection. Well, this problem is dealt with pretty easily. People are not stupid, and if there is no gov't they will still have homeowner's insurance. Well, if an insurer is insuring someone, someone will evauluate the insuree's risk level. If the insuree has a too high risk level, the premiums will cost a lot of money. So, to make the risk lower, the insuree subscribes to a private police force. This police force might drive by all of their customer's houses every night to make sure everything is ok. Perhaps they will install some sort of button in the home, and in an emergancy, the owner pushes the button and private police show up.

Now, the next question is, what happens if I think that someone has wronged me? There are no courts, and we canot come to a decision ourselves. What now?

Well, the anwer is that the lack of gov't does not imply the lack of courts. There can still be private courts. These courst will have a higher incentive to be fair. If both parties agree to the outcome, and it can be showed that the court was unfair, the court will lose customers. Who wants an unfair court?

But what happens if one of the parties to the suit does not comply with the court's ruling, or doesn't even show up? The court (unless both people agree) has no right to FORCE a person to listen to its ruling. So how is this solved? Well, pretty simply, if a man does not abide by a respected court (that is one with a reputaion of fairness) other people may force to do business with him. An employer might not want to hire him because he is untrustworthy. Perhaps he won't get a loan because his credit score is bad because of this instance. So people will have an incentive to abide by the court's ruling.

None of what I say could happen with no gov't should be construed as my oppinion of what WILL happen in ancarhy. But this is the beauty of the whole system. In the current system, we have no idea if we are using resources effiecently or not. We don't pay for the gov't services directly. How do we know if the gov't protection services are worth what they cost? We don't. In anarchy, businesses would have to take cost into consideration. Rerources will go to the areas that need them most.

This is a very brief overview, and I am sure I have left something off. But I am always willing to answer questions!

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

That's very interesting. Just a couple of thoughts. If there's no state (as in the polity) then that doesn't mean there's no police function carried out. I think there still would be but it wouldn't serve the interests of the state as it does now. It might be that paid police are still in place but they would be pretty different from the current model in common law-influenced areas. The police now look after the interests of the state, not the community. same with the courts. The courts are just another manifestation of the power of the state. There would still be courts I think but as has been indicated, they would operate differently, to serve people rather than the state.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

And the beauty of this entire thing is that it relies on self interest to work. That is, people will do what they do because they see a benefit for themselves. This is the same today, but as you have pointed out, in order to serve their interests, governmental agents must serve the state.

In an anarchy situation, the police will only get paid if they are curteous and polite. If there is a real jerk cop, he will find himelf with out a job. Just imagine if the average mall cop behaved in the same manner as an average gov't cop. You walk down the mall, and some cop decides he doesn't like you, so he stops you and harrasses you for half an hour about having an untied shoelace. After a couple (or maybe one) of these encounters, people will stop going to the offending mall. Or stop driving on the offending road. Or stop using the offending postal service.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Well, these are pretty much your only options.
What is the difference between a community and a group?

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

But if you control a large supply of, let's say, cocaine and firearms, isn't it in your benefit to use that control to extort or simply steal the private property of others?

__________________

No, not really. You are applying thought from one situation to another. In the current state-existent society, cocaine is worth a lot of money. This is because it is in short supply. Why is it in short supply? Because gov't has made it illegal. Take away this aspect, and the drug guys won't have to shoot eachother over 'turf wars'. When was the last time tobacco companies fought it out in the streets?

But, let's assume that there is some jerk who is hell bent on world (or community) domination. He is going to have to A)get guns and B) get people. Now the people are going to want to be paid. And he will have to pay for the guns. He is going to have to get this money from somewhere. Chances are that he cannot get a loan from a bank, or anyone else. So, what is he to do?

Perhaps he could steal little by little and ammass a small army that will grow overtime. But, after a little thought it is clear that this is unlikley. Private police forces will be far more efficent in protecting their customers: if a lot of their customers are robbed, they will lose business. So the idea that he will rob to make money is also unlikely.

Now, let us consider the situation in which he is already rich. What then? Well, he is going to run into opposition from communities, police forces, and indivduals. The indivduals could definatly beat him. Just look at similar situations in the world. The Brittish lost to the Americans, etc.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

The only way opposition from individuals could beat someone like this is if the opposition itself is organized, at which point there is no more anarchy. Also, the American revolution was nothing like the scenario you're describing, in that nobody in the leadership (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) had any intention of setting up some kind of governmentless utopia.

__________________

if we lived in anarchy i would be the first to organize an army and become a warlord.

__________________
"To those who say what must be said; They lead the way for those who will do what must be done."

Capitalism is Democracy, vote with your dollar.

The audience is asked to remain seated until the end of the recession.

Organizization does not, in any way, mean 'state'. Why would it be a state if people organize to fight against an oppressor?

And, as for Jefferson, you are not entirely correct.

This is exactly contrary to what you argue. Jefferson believed that governemnts could not legitimatly govern those who did not want to be governed.

As for my point about the Revoulution, you missed what I wasy saying. I was giving an example of a loosly organized, small group of people that fought against a giant oppressor.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Very simple: the minute you join an organization, even for the practical purpose of fighting against a warlord or an oppressor, you are allowing at least some other members of the organization to make at least some decisions for you. And voila, you have a state, or in other words, you're being governed.

Which, by the way, also covers Jefferson's "consent of the governed" philosophy.

__________________

What we have here is a misinderstanding. When I say "anarchy" means a socuety with no state I define state as being an invoulantary arrangment. That is, people have no choice, they are forced to be governed. I am against this because it is unjust, and as Jefferson said, government gets its just powers from the constent of the governed.

In a voulantary agreement, there is no force, therefor there is no state, in the sense I am defining it. THIS is true anarchy. In an anarchic sitation, outlawing voulantray organizations would be a an act of the state, or government.

In true anarchy, the only just arrangments are voulantary. Forming a co-op for food, defense, etc., is not an act of a coercive state.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address