Anarchists in fact DON’T believe in the goodwill of society. Which is why they’re against all states, (even if the states are democratic).
Lemme ask you a question. Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else. I’m guessing you wouldn’t support such an arrangement. Why? Because you don’t trust the rest of the world to have the same values as you, the same way of life, etc. The world is deeply homophobic for example. The UN could immediately ban homosexuality. You wouldn’t want that.
The UN is an organization, yes. Is it a state? No. Would the world be better if it was one state? No.
Try analysing using the same technique to lower and lower levels. What about a country? Imagine country X doesn’t exist and instead, sovereign provinces in that country exist. They all want to make a deal to cooperate and further shared interests. Does giving up sovereignty over violence make sense as part of that deal? It almost always doesn’t (in my opinion).
Take this further down to cities and towns in those provinces.
Sovereignty over violence makes sure that exit from a cooperation agreement is possible. If you remove the ability to exit, then well… you’ve essentially allowed yourself to be enslaved.
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.
I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else.
Yes, yes I would very much support that government. I don’t see a point in “one armed forces” though, they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
Let’s continue from here.
EDIT: About your note that anarchism doesn’t believe in the goodwill of society: I said was that freedom and equality are core rights, I don’t think you’ve corrected me on this, so the question stands on who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Yes, yes I would very much support that government.
Hmm… Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women’s rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I’m in Canada, and I wouldn’t want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let’s say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn’t given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it’s states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.
Anarchists in fact DON’T believe in the goodwill of society. Which is why they’re against all states, (even if the states are democratic).
Lemme ask you a question. Would you support a world government? One democratic government, one armed forces. Only the UN has the ability to be violent. Noone else. I’m guessing you wouldn’t support such an arrangement. Why? Because you don’t trust the rest of the world to have the same values as you, the same way of life, etc. The world is deeply homophobic for example. The UN could immediately ban homosexuality. You wouldn’t want that.
The UN is an organization, yes. Is it a state? No. Would the world be better if it was one state? No.
Try analysing using the same technique to lower and lower levels. What about a country? Imagine country X doesn’t exist and instead, sovereign provinces in that country exist. They all want to make a deal to cooperate and further shared interests. Does giving up sovereignty over violence make sense as part of that deal? It almost always doesn’t (in my opinion).
Take this further down to cities and towns in those provinces.
Sovereignty over violence makes sure that exit from a cooperation agreement is possible. If you remove the ability to exit, then well… you’ve essentially allowed yourself to be enslaved.
Uh, yes? That would be my dream scenario.
Why would they need an army? To fight the penguins?
The majority of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative. A singular global state means that it can legislate away freedoms that queer folk have. Unless you are socially conservative yourself, I have no idea why this would be your dream scenario.
To enforce laws. A “law” is a legislated rule that is backed by the threat of violence. Let’s say the global state decides to increase excise taxes on weed. The administrative division that was the former country of the Netherlands rebels against this and refuses to pay the increased tax.
The state’s last resort is sending in an armed force that can violently collect this tax if necessary.
Without an armed force to enforce laws, you get… the UN. An institution that just passes resolutions, which can easily be ignored by literally anyone. The UN is a forum of states to “talk”. It is not a state itself.
I don’t get your point, you ask me a question then assume to know what my answer is, then build your case on straw?
Yes, yes I would very much support that government. I don’t see a point in “one armed forces” though, they serve no purpose in such a world, and why would the UN be allowed to be violent?
Let’s continue from here.
EDIT: About your note that anarchism doesn’t believe in the goodwill of society: I said was that freedom and equality are core rights, I don’t think you’ve corrected me on this, so the question stands on who is meant to uphold these values once they get trampled on? Is it then every man for himself, wild west style, and fuck the weak?
It was my attempt to lessen the impact of status quo bias by positing the idea of states as a novel, non status quo concept.
Hmm… Most of the world is deeply deeply socially conservative (Africa, India, the Middle East). Queer folk would be outright banned. Women’s rights would be eroded super quickly.
I mean forget Africa and stuff. I’m in Canada, and I wouldn’t want to be in any union with the US despite sharing similar cultures.
How else would laws be enforced? A law is fundamentally a rule that is enforced with the threat of violence.
Anarchist militias. Again, no state ≠ no organisation. Anarchist communes would likely have their own militias. These militias would likely form coalitions with other militias for collective protection and efficiency. Large consensual organisation can form. These militias could also be involved in preemptive strikes against forming authoritarian structures.
The important point however, is that these power structures can be exited. Let’s say a coalition member decides to exit the coalition. While the coalition can become violent against this former member, the former member still has teeth, as it hasn’t given this coalition monopoly over violence.
Talking about human rights violations, almost always, it’s states that are actively involved in trampling human rights. Slavery, the Holocaust, Native American genocide, most genocides, etc. were all conducted by states.