If you’re actually interested and not just being debate-y then I’d suggest you read some foundational literature or if you want stuff that’s more how this might work in practice consider reading about the CNT FAI during the Spanish civil war.
The government derives its authority from its ability to direct men armed with guns and torture implements to force you to comply on pain of death or agony.
Seriously if you’re actually curious just read, it’ll be more informative than any silly internet comment section.
Nah I’m not going to read a book to answer a simple question.
A government derives its power from its monopoly of violence. If there is no government, that means there is no monopoly of violence. If there is no monopoly of violence, there is no means to enforce rules or laws, since whoever is more powerful (that is, has “more” violence) can just ignore the rule/law.
Real world examples of anarchist societies do nothing more than prove my point. They are temporary. Anarchist “rule” in Barcelona did not survive the war. No anarchist societies do.
In order for a political system to stand the test of time, it has to be protected from both external and internal enemies. That is, you need a military and a police. The only way around it is to import your military (that is, have an ally with a strong military willing to protect you). But it doesn’t make much sense to import your police.
If you don’t protect from exterior enemies, the same as Barcelona happens, an enemy force just invades and asserts its political system. And if you don’t protect from internal enemies, then your own “citizens” can organize themselves and develop their own state that can just take over all the land that your anarchist society used to be in.
I find it hard to believe that you can have both a military and a police in a system where there are supposedly no rulers.
How is that different from a government?
If you’re actually interested and not just being debate-y then I’d suggest you read some foundational literature or if you want stuff that’s more how this might work in practice consider reading about the CNT FAI during the Spanish civil war.
The government derives its authority from its ability to direct men armed with guns and torture implements to force you to comply on pain of death or agony.
Seriously if you’re actually curious just read, it’ll be more informative than any silly internet comment section.
Nah I’m not going to read a book to answer a simple question.
A government derives its power from its monopoly of violence. If there is no government, that means there is no monopoly of violence. If there is no monopoly of violence, there is no means to enforce rules or laws, since whoever is more powerful (that is, has “more” violence) can just ignore the rule/law.
Real world examples of anarchist societies do nothing more than prove my point. They are temporary. Anarchist “rule” in Barcelona did not survive the war. No anarchist societies do.
In order for a political system to stand the test of time, it has to be protected from both external and internal enemies. That is, you need a military and a police. The only way around it is to import your military (that is, have an ally with a strong military willing to protect you). But it doesn’t make much sense to import your police.
If you don’t protect from exterior enemies, the same as Barcelona happens, an enemy force just invades and asserts its political system. And if you don’t protect from internal enemies, then your own “citizens” can organize themselves and develop their own state that can just take over all the land that your anarchist society used to be in.
I find it hard to believe that you can have both a military and a police in a system where there are supposedly no rulers.