AH Challenge: Anarchist America
- Thread starter Cyrrylia
- Start date
Only if anarchy itself is feasible, which, in my opinion, it is not and never could be. If a government is not deliberately established, someone will take control, and the results are not likely to be pretty.
Where, exactly? And this is a near ASB challenge... ALL of America?
Cyrrylia
Banned
There are 13 colonies. That is not a lot. It should not be an ASB. Classical Liberalism is only an inch away from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Classical Liberalism was big back then. It should not be too hard to make the next step. The thing is, how to get it big enough to where the founding fathers want to break away from England with such ideas in mind.
Celtic Ireland for about a thousand years was very Anarchistic, the Inuit and Iroquois were too, some American Colonies started out Anarchistic, such as Rhode Island, the Old West was fairly Anarcho-Capitalistic, as was Medieval Iceland.
Celtic Ireland for about a thousand years was very Anarchistic, the Inuit and Iroquois were too, some American Colonies started out Anarchistic, such as Rhode Island, the Old West was fairly Anarcho-Capitalistic, as was Medieval Iceland.
Stronger anabaptist influence on the Founding Fathers could help.
No Constitutional Convention would also move the country away from Federalism. Shay's Rebellion is averted or maybe successful (perhaps through massive civil disobedience by the farmers, rather than armed uprising), citizens remedy the multiple currency problem by going on a partial barter system, Robert Morris gets his 25-year plan to pay off debts to France.
No Constitutional Convention would also move the country away from Federalism. Shay's Rebellion is averted or maybe successful (perhaps through massive civil disobedience by the farmers, rather than armed uprising), citizens remedy the multiple currency problem by going on a partial barter system, Robert Morris gets his 25-year plan to pay off debts to France.
And, as noted in the previous post, certian descendents of the Anabaptist movement are very close to anarchism and communism.
You realize that, in the strictist sense, anarchism is a lack or all government structure and rules?
That means no family, religion, friends, or associations of any sort, since those put barriers on personal action. The Iriquios still had the family and tribal structure. Communism is also not anarchy, because there has to be a system to share the wealth.
No strong arming eachother either, since that is a form of leadership and government, and thus not anarchy.
Even what we consider anarchy, where rule of law is non existant, isn't truly anarchy because there are power groups vying for control, usually strongmen with guns.
And considering how the American colonies were descended from a people who reinvented the concept of rule by law, and that the first Americans came up with the novel idea of writing the government down on paper, making the colonies the antithesis of what they were is pretty darn close to ASB.
Anarcho-capitalism is also an oxymoron, because the concept of capitalism is to trade goods in an (gasp) organized and consistant manner. An anarchist economy is "I take what I can", not "I buy what I can". The very concept of money (something that has constant value and is guaranteed by an outside influence) is opposed to anarchy.
PS: There's also the fact that, if the colonies don't work together in some organized fashion, the British will be free to march into the unorganized opposition and enforce an order of its own.
That means no family, religion, friends, or associations of any sort, since those put barriers on personal action. The Iriquios still had the family and tribal structure. Communism is also not anarchy, because there has to be a system to share the wealth.
No strong arming eachother either, since that is a form of leadership and government, and thus not anarchy.
Even what we consider anarchy, where rule of law is non existant, isn't truly anarchy because there are power groups vying for control, usually strongmen with guns.
And considering how the American colonies were descended from a people who reinvented the concept of rule by law, and that the first Americans came up with the novel idea of writing the government down on paper, making the colonies the antithesis of what they were is pretty darn close to ASB.
Anarcho-capitalism is also an oxymoron, because the concept of capitalism is to trade goods in an (gasp) organized and consistant manner. An anarchist economy is "I take what I can", not "I buy what I can". The very concept of money (something that has constant value and is guaranteed by an outside influence) is opposed to anarchy.
PS: There's also the fact that, if the colonies don't work together in some organized fashion, the British will be free to march into the unorganized opposition and enforce an order of its own.
Cyrrylia
Banned
You realise that, that is not so, right? The only thing required for Anarchism, is the lack of a central state.
Your entire statement, I am sad to say, shows a horrible lack of knowledge on the subject.
Your post actually makes me angry, because it seems like you think you know all about this stuff, when you obviously know nothing at all about Anarchist theory. Any Anarchist would laugh at you. Any Political Scientist or Social Scientist who studied Anarchy would laugh at you. Well, the Anarchists would probably get angry like me, since the way you are speaking, and going about it, would be annoying to Anarchists. Attempting to refute it with what Anarchists would believe to be obviously incorrect statements of the most fundamental level.
You know, Wikipedia is your friend?
Getting them to declare their independence: no way.
But what if the empire went to hell in a hand-basket? Wasn't the south sea bubble collapse around 1720? Let's assume that the South Sea panic starts an even bigger panic in Britain. The Toreys, capitalizing on the massive wave of economic depression, blame the Whigs and their "corrupt new money men" and demand new elections. The government balks, and so the Toreys (particularly the Jacobite sympathizers within the Torey movement) start paying street gangs to riot in major British cities. The Whigs do likewise, and before long Britain is in turmoil. James takes the golden opportunity to invade, backed by the survivors from the 15. Though they are better led, this doesn't say much. England descends into chaos, leaving the colonies to fend for themselves.
You wouldn't get anarchy per sey on the colonial front, but you might be able to work it around to their, particularly if the Toreys/Jacobites come out on top and expel all the liberals and non-conformists to the colonies.
But what if the empire went to hell in a hand-basket? Wasn't the south sea bubble collapse around 1720? Let's assume that the South Sea panic starts an even bigger panic in Britain. The Toreys, capitalizing on the massive wave of economic depression, blame the Whigs and their "corrupt new money men" and demand new elections. The government balks, and so the Toreys (particularly the Jacobite sympathizers within the Torey movement) start paying street gangs to riot in major British cities. The Whigs do likewise, and before long Britain is in turmoil. James takes the golden opportunity to invade, backed by the survivors from the 15. Though they are better led, this doesn't say much. England descends into chaos, leaving the colonies to fend for themselves.
You wouldn't get anarchy per sey on the colonial front, but you might be able to work it around to their, particularly if the Toreys/Jacobites come out on top and expel all the liberals and non-conformists to the colonies.
Oh, boy. Anarchy is something without government yes, but gov't can be said to be any strong influence at all. Dean means total Anarchy .
Anarchy says people will come together because of common sense and develop such a society as soon as gov't is abolished, which is preety unlikely. If people said Communism was unlikely because of human nature, this is as well.
You anarchists talk about 'the missed chance' where people could form this. Well, we had that. Pre-history. We were free to do what we want, and guess what? We formed gov'ts. Status quo developed.
It is in 'human nature' to have a gov't, just as it is in 'human nature' to react against communism. *Sigh*
I have to admit that I doubt we'll ever live to see an avowed anarchist society develop on the national lever, but one should note that human nature is not always synonymous with good, if anything the reverse is true. All governments are created with the notion that they can temper the evils of humanity while in practice few can temper the evil and most amplify it.Oh, boy. Anarchy is something without government yes, but gov't can be said to be any strong influence at all. Dean means total Anarchy .
Anarchy says people will come together because of common sense and develop such a society as soon as gov't is abolished, which is preety unlikely. If people said Communism was unlikely because of human nature, this is as well.
You anarchists talk about 'the missed chance' where people could form this. Well, we had that. Pre-history. We were free to do what we want, and guess what? We formed gov'ts. Status quo developed.
It is in 'human nature' to have a gov't, just as it is in 'human nature' to react against communism. *Sigh*
Let us not get into this. That is not the point of this thread. You want to talk about it, start a thread in the Chat forum.
It is simply I think it would be interesting to think about, how to get America Anarchist.
Acutally, he brings up a good point (as well as recognizing that I was speaking of total anarchy (which I consider the only true anarchy, just as I consider the USSR not true communists)).
Perhaps you should explain why anarchy missed its chance in prehistory, and how the exact same thing wouldn't happen later. Then, you can try and steer the topic towards a potential POD. AJnote had a basic idea, of where rule from Britain breaks down. But that still doesn't quite defeat the tradition of self-government in the american colonies.
As for anarchists laughing at me, I can tell you what I'd do. I'd laugh back at them, take their names and home addresses, and partake of the American tradition for dealing with anarchists and communists. Namely, spread their names amoungs their neighbors and the buisnesses they work at and the government, and see how they like society in action.
<NOTE: THIS IS SARCASTIC KIDDING ON THE SQUARE, NOTING THE HISTORICAL OPPOSITION ANARCHISTS HAVE FACED IN AMERICA. ANY OFFENSE TAKKEN WILL MOCKED.>
Cyrrylia
Banned
The difference is, there is an actual political definition of Anarchy, which is NOT what you consider true Anarchism. Anarchists, political scientists, and social scientists would consider than an idiotic stupidity, and not Anarchism. Communism, also, has a definition of what it should be, just like Anarchism. Nobody would be taken seriously if they said that True Communism was where everybody trades with each other in a free market, because that is blatantly not what Communism is.
The fact is, your Definition of True Anarchism, is not Anarchism at all. That is the point I was making. It is like thinking Fascism provides freedom for everybody or something. It is just not true. And it is annoying to see people defend blatantly false perceptions. Like fundie Christians and Creationism.
You assume I think that Anarchy missed its chance.
I do not. This is not some political thing or anything.
It is that I think it might have been possible for America to have been born Anarchist, because of Classical Liberalism existing, and the start of certain Colonies being Anarchist.
I think it possible. It is up to y'all to think up ways of it happening.
While freedom is all well and good,and works,"anarchism" is impossible in a organized society.Sooner or later,something will gain control,or the society falls apart.Somebody commented that the world had anarchy for a few thousand years.Yes,but that was the Stone Age,and who wants to go back there?
Oh, boy. Anarchy is something without government yes, but gov't can be said to be any strong influence at all. Dean means total Anarchy .
Anarchy says people will come together because of common sense and develop such a society as soon as gov't is abolished, which is preety unlikely. If people said Communism was unlikely because of human nature, this is as well.
You anarchists talk about 'the missed chance' where people could form this. Well, we had that. Pre-history. We were free to do what we want, and guess what? We formed gov'ts. Status quo developed.
It is in 'human nature' to have a gov't, just as it is in 'human nature' to react against communism. *Sigh*
Oh, come on. Human nature argument.
If someone said that it was in human nature to live in a despotic society I´d laugh, but the said fellow would be able to point out that in ancient times nearly all societies that formed were despotic.
He could also point out that in times of crisis people often move to totalitarian and authoritarian structures.
It´s not in human nature to select a certain type of government. It is neither in human nature to vote for democrats, republicans, the know nothing party or libertarians.
*Sigh*
You must first study what people refer to when they speak of anarchy as a form of society. Anarchy isn´t just what it is in Civ 2, it is also a set of theories which you´d have to use arguments against, because they already have arguments for them selves.
I doubt any of you would want to live in the Icelandic commonwealth or any similar structure, but some people actually do and it´s not a system without benefits. (Although I doubt that it would fit current level of technology
).
Cyrrylia
Banned
Sorry guys, just got back from Mississippi.
When I first made this thread, I figured if America was to be Anarchistic, it would be so in a way similar to how Iceland was (semi)Anarchistic. Because like I said, Classical Liberalism is pretty darn close to Anarcho-Capitalism, it does not seem too hard to have somebody/people during the Enlightenment mix a radicalised Loch and a radicalised Smith, and create An-Cap.
But since then, I feel it could be possible to get America to a more Religious Anarchist persuasion.
When I first made this thread, I figured if America was to be Anarchistic, it would be so in a way similar to how Iceland was (semi)Anarchistic. Because like I said, Classical Liberalism is pretty darn close to Anarcho-Capitalism, it does not seem too hard to have somebody/people during the Enlightenment mix a radicalised Loch and a radicalised Smith, and create An-Cap.
But since then, I feel it could be possible to get America to a more Religious Anarchist persuasion.