Comments on: Always Ask: ‘As Compared to What?’

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

This is very interesting. The conventional wisdom seems to be that predatory governments can persist without simply overwhelming force because the oppressed citizenry perceives friction in revolution/anarchy sufficient to stay a rebellion. I also wonder if predatory governments are not equilibrium conditions that frequently emerge from anarchy.

By: Crusader

Crusader — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

The thing is in an immediate power vacuum, there might be anarchy for a short time until some ambitious man or woman rises to the top to lead. Then that's the end of anarchy. You can't really point to any extended periods of anarchy in human history lasting longer then a few years. One such power vacuum comes to mind during the Russian Civil War(1917-1921). But as we all know that ended very brutally for the Whites, and power was taken and held very solidly by the Bolsheviks for 70 years(some would say Putin is evidence they never lost it).

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

I disagree with you, Crusader. American Indian tribes – especially the Plains Indians existed for centuries as anarchist societies. Individuals were free to come and go as they saw fit. They followed the wanderings of one group in the tribe, and if they disagreed with any aspect of their living conditions, they splintered off with another group, or formed their own group, all without the first group giving a hoot or a holler about it. There were no "leaders" per se, only Holy Men who advised the group about things like when to move on, when to burn the grass to encourage the return of the buffalo, where to settle next, etc. But the group was never obligated to take the advice. They lived this way for centuries, if not millenia. They prove beyond doubt that societies can survive quite nicely without the heavy hand of a state.

By: Crusader

Crusader — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

Dan – and because the tribes were anarchic and undeveloped, the White Man came and conquered them. Point proven.

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

And another thing: the anarchy to which you refer is not really anarchy at all. You are confusing the chaos that ensues from the demise of a failing state with anarchy. Anarchy is not chaos. Chaos occurs as rival thuggish gangs battle over the pickings of an existing state apparatus. All the ingredients for a strong man to come in and take control are in place. The strong man doesn't come into a vacuum. He enters the picture with the means to oppress the people already in place. A strong man replaces a failing state. What difference is it to the people involved? What do they care whether a failing state enslaves them or a strong man? They're still slaves.