Challenge Workable Anarchy

You make it sound like all you need to do to industrialize is build factories; but surely it's clear that modern technology requires a fairly advanced system of interrelationships?

Of course, and I never said what you claim I said. I'd appreciate you not shoving words down my throat.

But what I mean is we have the technology today to create an almost entirely self-sufficient biome. It's just expensive. Sometime in the future, when asteroid colonization (which is also something we have the technology for today, it is merely extremely and pointlessly expensive) is possible, I find it terribly unlikely we will have made no advances on that front, especially with everything that's coming with biotech and nanotech.
 

Hendryk

Banned
After the existence of a self-sufficient manufacturing base.

I don't think you get it. The early American colonies were small, and dependent on the metropole for everything but food. However, eventually they grew to be self-sufficient and able to use the resources around them to survive rather than resources shipped to them. It's almost completely analogous to the likely situation for space colonization: Initially entirely dependent on Earth-based resources for survival, but eventually gain enough industrial power space-side that they can support themselves.

There is NOTHING that cannot be gotten in space with the right equipment. It'd be a technically demanding life to support a community on an asteroid, but then again, surviving out on the frontier wasn't easy, either.
At least the Frontier was an Earth environment, which is more than can be said for asteroids. It makes a huge difference, as the very concept of self-reliance becomes a moot point. The motto in space is "Be interdependent or be dead".

Further, what you're suggesting is a corpocracy, which may be the secret dream of many libertarians, but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called anarchism. Even if those asteroid colonies of yours were to attain self-sufficiency, that would just mean they'd be under the thumb of local corporations rather than Earth-based ones. For the average worker drone, what difference would it make that he's working for Con-Amalgamate 27 rather than Newmont Mining Corporation?

(Yes, it's an "Outland" reference).
 
Of course, and I never said what you claim I said. I'd appreciate you not shoving words down my throat.

But what I mean is we have the technology today to create an almost entirely self-sufficient biome.

I wasn't shoving words dwon your throats. I was just questioning your claim that it would be easy to industrialize a series of rocks in vacuum by pointing out how complex our postindustrial economy was.
 

Ardimis

Banned
I would agree that deep space mining colonies would be the last place you would find any form of anarchy. As already stated the early ones would be expensive and risky endeavors and those who invested in it would be sure to keep their miners under their thumb. And even as the colony progressed and reached any level of self sufficiency the corporations/governments would have made sure that they left people in charge that would maintain their interests, and be sure to leave these people with the means to do so. Though I would be willing to bet individuals would be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they met the quota, and didn't mess with the colonies output.

I did give it some thought though and could find any workable system of anarchy. And that is because I feel the reworking it changes it to a different system of rule, that's because to me anarchy means 'no rule'. Which inevitably leads to chaos, when the system is essentially every man rules himself. It only works if you ignore human nature to better them selves and improve their place in life. But if their were no rules then it is plausible to assume that all it would take is the biggest stick for somebody to get whatever they wanted. This of course would lead to people getting a better stick to defend what they have. Then the original offenders would find some people after the same goals and out number the defender. And then you have an escalation of force on both sides which would eventually lead to some sort of governance.

So again the only way i can see to make anarchy work is if all members of the community are happy with their place in life, and none want what the other has. Unless of course its a community of robots, but that doesn't count.

But that's just my opinion.
 
The big tag-team that smacks down anarchy is Malthus and Sun Tzu.

Organization is a huge advantage in a war or armed conflict. Chains of command, logistics, training, discipline -all essentiual. And Malthus says humans breed until there is conflict over resources. Anarchy loses the conflicts.

Best setup for an anarchy would be some science fantasy setup. The invention of cheap wormhole travel, and many lifesustainig planets to go to.
No neighbours, and a very long time until the planet is full.

After the existence of a self-sufficient manufacturing base.

I don't think you get it. The early American colonies were small, and dependent on the metropole for everything but food. However, eventually they grew to be self-sufficient and able to use the resources around them to survive rather than resources shipped to them. It's almost completely analogous to the likely situation for space colonization: Initially entirely dependent on Earth-based resources for survival, but eventually gain enough industrial power space-side that they can support themselves.

There is NOTHING that cannot be gotten in space with the right equipment. It'd be a technically demanding life to support a community on an asteroid, but then again, surviving out on the frontier wasn't easy, either.

The problem is that in space you are not only dependent on resources, but also on skills. The hydropontics specialist, the electrican, sanitation technican, air cycle specialist -you need far, far more skills than any single man can have, and a big organistaion to make sure the next generation always has a good mix of them.
 
Top