You may be right. Changing human character traits, if it can be done at all, is an excruciatingly slow and difficult process. All the "bad apples" will need to have been worked through and wisdom will need to be developed as a primary tool in man's character. Thank you for your reply.

Interesting thread, but I would offer a comment to TexOwl and all others on it: I do not see the development of conflict as the major impediment to anarchy.

Let me tell you a story: At one time, I leaned strongly towards anarchism; I postulated an environment that was 'roomy' and affluent enough that people would not have a high urgency to compete for scarce resources and thought that amongst intelligent and well-disposed folks, this would just work. This opinion was bolstered by the high quality of people - friends and acquaintances - in my personal environment.

One day, I awoke as the co-founder of a budding bootstrap medical software company. As the company grew, we hired many of those friends and acquaintances. And then my warmth toward anarchy started dissolving.

It turns out that even when you hire people who are very intelligent and ethical, they do not behave with innate 'enlightened self interest'. Our original "Employee Handbook" was the verbally repeated injunction, "Do all of the good things and none of the bad things." This did not work. We now have a 20 page (gasp!) handbook with a lot of does and don'ts in it. The fact that most of our employees have been impeccably honest (to the point of refusing substantial bribes) and routinely work wonders does not mean that we haven't had occasional bad apples, nor does it mean that we can rely on our folks to pro-actively do their work instead of gaming on their computers - even when they consciously know that their paycheck depends on our getting the site in and happy.

So I have concluded that the reason anarchy does not work is that there is a certain percentage of bad apples who will actively try to damage successful interaction and that most people lack wisdom - the 'cattle on the Common' problem. In an anarchy, the intelligent and well-disposed man will park across the driveway to the fire station...for 'just a moment' to go into the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for his wife. (His personal need is great, and surely that will not hurt for just a few minutes...).

Jan

yes, society as a whole cooperates. Their reactions may be very different if they anticipate the minority who will not cooperate face no consequences. In a contractual situation, at the time parties enter into the contract there is agreement. At the time of mediation in one party's assertion the other broke the contract, there is usually not agreement. Depending on how high the stakes, it is hard to predict the actions of the party who will be liable. If mediation decision means one of the parties loses much of what they have built lots of time, talent and money to-some will not comply. What does the society do when those parties do not comply?
Other members of the society will watch the resolution of a high stakes mediation. When they see there is no compliance in even one case, it will color their own choices to invest in high stakes. How does a society increase its wealth or progress if none in the society are willing to put it all on the line? History shows us that most will not. But those who do can benefit greatly and increase the the well being of an entire society. In those societies that enforce and protect the contracts that and assets of those putting it all on the line, the overall health and strength of that society is exponentially better than those societies which do not. This is why nomadic societies stay much in the dark ages of civilization. It brings to mind an interesting question. Is a society as only strong as its weakest links?

This is a great subject with great comments. It seems the focus is on reasons anarchy fails which appears rooted deep in human character traits such as the need to resolve issues through adversarial encounters. A part of the problem comes from the desire to achieve anarchy today, immediately. I think workable anarchy, if possible, requires significant development in human character and understanding. Man must forgo the seven deadly sins and take his joy from the experience of living in ways that don't infringe on others doing the same. If this can be accomplished, the need for government to organize man ( and control the guy with the big club on the edge of the woods) will lose importance and the need for government will diminish. Since government is the hatch nest for adversarial relations, reduction in government size and power should help man in this development. Many changes could help bring t this human development about, such as changed emphasis in law school curriculum and goal oriented legal fee schedules as well as remedially oriented penal codes. Welfare agencies and other charities should turn their attention away from sustaining the derelict, to providing guidance toward success. These utopian changes may not be possible, but reducing the size of government would certainly help. If anarchy is possible, I think it will be through a slow developmental process as the acceptability of governmental control dissipates and man learns to enjoy his life without messing up others..

I don't understand the phase "bad break "chills"" so maybe you can explain that if it's important.

Without cooperation the remedy is no cooperation. If someone doesn't cooperate with me, I won't cooperate with him.

Apply it to the whole. Most of society cooperates on a daily basis without being forced to and it isn't because their scared of people coming to put them in cages if they don't. If someone doesn't want to cooperate that's their choice. If some one breaks a contract, or is caught stealing, he will be unable to get a credit card, a bank account, a loan, a job, an apartment or anything else because no DRO will insure him. And you never have to force him to do anything.

Well if you were going into a high stakes contact, you would want serious insurance on it or you wouldn't take the deal. Before the contract is signed you can pay an insurance company to make sure that if things go sour you will be compensated. The insurance company will calculate the risks and charge a premium based on the credit of the other party. This also gives you an idea about the trustworthiness of the other party. If your DRO wants to charge you a massive insurance premium on a contract, it throws up all sorts of red flags that the other person isn't going to follow through on their end.

yes, all good solutions-but the DRO means enforcement by its nature. there is no need for enforcement under cooperation, but when cooperation breaks down-what is the remedy? if cooperation breaks down enough, or a bad break "chills" eventually, people will stop participating and then you begin the devolve into chaos. This is a powerful concept as you well know rozar, it is always cheaper to steal than to produce

Without some form of government you have anarchy. Really the purpose of government is stability. Originally ours was a good idea until 1913 or so, having a limited federal gov. and strong states.
Of course everyone knows this. The problem is how to take the reins back and put us on the right track again.
The Federal government has it's purpose, if nothing more than to represent the states internationally, to provide for a standing military and to pass laws to cover all the states.
A good example of individuals living in an area of basically no government was the west and you fought for what was yours and the strong survived.

I'm a minarchist. I think government should secure the borders, maintain a military (for conflicts abroad), maintain roads...and not much else.

In some of my technical work I actually wrote building code. I see some need for limited government involvement in that. I found that non-government writers of code (trade groups) were too easily bought and would incorporate elements that actually put the public at risk. That stint was educational for me, in terms of my Objectivist views.

Our government, in the US, is an excessive user of force. Our government also bastardizes science. I'm disgusted by these things.

So you would say humans are naturally predisposed to form government? Anarchy is very stable in almost every interaction you have with others.

Your first point is that there is a minority that wants to use force to rule others. If you were to propose the best way to solve that problem is to give a small minority a legal monopoly on the use of force, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

The argument about property rights is a good one. For your nomad scenario, how would a state stop a bunch of nomads from stealing your apples any better than you could? You could even hire a DRO to insure your apples, so they would pay you for any one that was stolen. Now the DRO has an incentive to discover a means to prevent the nomad from taking the apples. A lot of problems in an anarchy turn into great business opportunities.

conflicts can become heated, especially when a lot rides on the breach or even someone's decision that results in the loss of a lot- marriage dissolution, partnership decisions, etc.
You place high confidence in trust and cooperation but I have seen cooperation dissolve time and time again under high stakes.
What does the anarchy society do, when one of parties refuses to adhere to the agreement? that is the test of enforcement.

What project if you don't mind me asking?

I agree completely, but anarchy has a way to enforce contracts. There are a few theories, from what I hear, but one that I really liked was the concept of a Dispute Resolution Organization. Before you sign a contract, you hire a DRO to mediate it. The DRO charges a fee for it's services, and both parties agree to submit to the resolution offered by the DRO should a dispute arise.

People can disagree on so many things, but if anyone wants to do business they have to have a basic trust. People want to be cost efficient, they want to get the biggest rewards for the smallest efforts and risk. You have the potential of being screwed on a daily basis, but how many times have you had to sue that darn wal-mart for selling you a faulty product? When was the last time you had to use a courtroom to do anything that actually benefited your life?

That last question is really a shot in the dark considering you might of actually spent a considerable amount in one but I don't think most people have.

throw a group of people together under anarchy, you're going to have people disagree. even if they agree to anarchy, they will disagree on the standards or the facts.
Any long term agreement or investment is going to require a contract. If there is no enforcement mechanism, a contract is meaningless. Without contracts, no one will build or develop. the "group" will be forever stuck in just existing because plans and agreements, by definition, require consensus

I am not an anarchist and I understand that most people need government they way that they need religion. For those who do not, other modes exist.

If you look at the reality of global capitalism, you realize that for Toyota or Mercedes to make and sell cars, they must have enforceable contracts, but also cross many borders. So, they shop for laws. Read any contract you have. Two points define the context:

1. The contract is interpreted according to the laws of some place - not necessarily where you or they live or do business.

2. You agree to arbitration.

Generally, the American Arbitration Agency (HQ in Ireland, actually) is often the preferred vendor. But if you look in your own local community, you will find law offices offering arbitration, adjudication, and mediation services. (The three are different.)

Moreover, the Uniform Commercial Code (see WIkipedia) was created from whole cloth by a committee of jurists who sought to reconcile the different intentions of contracted parties. Many firms adopted it. If you look, you might find that your own state government just absorbed it into local law. The UCC has its origin in a simple fact: when you buy something, you issued a sales memo which has terms stated on the back. But you responded to a purchase order that had its terms stated on the back. How are those reconciled when they conflict?

I have worked in private security since 2002 and my degrees are in criminology. Private guards take a lot abuse from the public perception -- as do selfishness and capitalism. The reality is different from the common perception. Just to say, for over 100 years private police at Ford Motor Company worked next door to private police from General Motors and no one ever fired a shot at the other. War is not profitable.

If you explore any "end of the world" scenario, it is clear that without a sense of EXTERNAL control, most people would devolve to savagery. The missing piece is the INTERNALIZED morality of the rational person. When more people know their own best interests, government will - as the man said - wither away.

Minipuck asked: "These group of people without a central government would be relying on someone to run this third party credit check /bank thing."

No ONE agency would, but here and now COMPETING agencies do: the big three credit reporting firms for consumer credit. In yesterday's news Standard & Poor (another firm serving a different market) just downgraded France's bonds.

Long ago, some MIT "radical for capitalism" offer his Ayn Rand Club the idea of a "meta-stable society" one that constantly realigns to changing conditions. It is not ONE institution for education and ONE for healthcare and ONE for transportation but a plurality that brings true stability.

"without a sense of EXTERNAL control, most people would devolve to savagery."
I disagree that most people would devolve to savagery. The problem is-once you have one person using force to get their way and has any success at it, then you will see others copy the strategy or align with him. now you have little fiefdoms and force becomes the operating principle.

if people didn't believe in using force to get their way, we wouldn't have the govt we have today. All it takes is a small loud minority for your peaceful anarchical society to turn to tyranny.
as well, you will have disagreements over rights. to a nomad, the idea one can own an apple on a tree makes no sense but to the orchard owner (which could be your society sharing the orchard) at some number of nomads coming through-you will want to protect the apples, because you are counting them, you put in the work to ensure they're growing there. same with technology, etc.

It's good that you can see you're own arguments, and I'll do my best to give my own, but the best thing about an anarchy is you don't have to agree to something you don't want to. It is a two way negotiation.

In your first point, and this is my best to explain it without much research:
If he was willing to allow this third party to view and monitor his savings, they could give him a reduced rate, as long as he signed a contract with whoever was giving him the voucher, that they would have access to remove a certain amount of money from his bank account automatically If he didn't fulfill his obligations.

Banks make a lot of anarchist arguments possible, with their ability to guarantee funds in case of a default, and their secondary ability of blacklisting those who do default.

this reminds me of years and years ago when I graduated college and got married. my husband kept getting denied credit because he had zero debt and didn't have a history anywhere. yet, he had sizeable savings. it was frustrating. eventually I had to take out a card and put his name on my. account to get him started. anyway, those fees could be a barrier to entry in this case. would an anarchist be okay with a barrier to entry?

one more point - - I guess in this sort of situation, these group of people without a central government would be relying on someone to run this third party credit check /bank thing. what if there is no one who is willing, or what if there is no one with the knowledge and skills to organize one to work well? what happens then?

even as I say this, I know what argument i would use against myself. still, since this is an exercise, I'd like to see what you say.

A lot of it would depend on similar people agreeing with your principles. If you can find an insurance company willing to insure you after asking what your principles are, you can feel secure in practicing them. Obviously those insurance companies would be looking for a highest profit in their customer base, and would be over run by better insurance companies offering a more secure Base.

Someone with no credit is usually still able to get a credit card. It's about investigating their past to decide on trading the personal risk to insure them. If you have a relatively good back ground an insurance company could offer you a small fee for insuring its modest claims. Obviously a hobo looking for insurance in a multi million contract will be denied insurance, but it's the insurance company's decision on who to take risks on.

Doesn't it depend on principles? It always goes back to that. If you're principled then you won't try to swindle your neighbor....like back when a handshake was a contract....and shooting someone for stealing your property was the right thing to do.