Politely: No.
Who are the government? Why do they get to make laws?
That varies from one jurisdiction to the next, doesnât it? It doesnât change the fact that anarchist principles push for no government at all, and so are at odds with making anything illegal.
1 Like
No government doesnât mean no governance.
And now I promise to stay away from this hair-splitting contest.
2 Likes
Youâve simply restated your assumptions without answering the question.
1 Like
Yes it does.
If some entity carries out governance⌠theyâre the government.
Itâs pretty simple.
2 Likes
Thatâs not correct even at the usual Summit discourse level of dictionary definition pedantry; the absolute simplest counterexamples are things like market or non-Caldari corporate governance.
1 Like
The governments of nations are not the only âgovernments.â
You can be the government of a corporation or the government of a particular market.
Youâre just attached to the idea of âanarchyâ because itâs edgy.
1 Like
Hm. I seem to remember from somewhere, maâam, that there can be some kind of curious ⌠gradations? Shades? Nuances? Of anarchy? ⌠Which seems a little strange to say.
Iâve either forgotten or never really knew the details, and the whole thing is marked in my memory with a huge âSKEPTICALâ marker I assume my predecessor left. But, there might some interesting ideas out there among anarchists for how to, uh, try to make their hoped-for non-government work, systemically.
Iâm not saying theyâd work, at least on a large scale (and it seems like people can make almost anything work on a small one). But it might be interesting to find out more, if thatâs what these people are aiming for.
2 Likes
Ah, but you needed to put the second one in scare quotes. Why is that?
This is a pretty hard shift from discussing ideas to straight-up ascribing motivations, but sure! I can play that game. Ah, hm⌠âYouâre just someone who doesnât understand the concepts theyâre discussing and canât conceive of a life outside of servitude.â
1 Like
Theyâre not âscare quotes.â Itâs to point out that theyâre not the only things that can be correctly referred to with the word âgovernment.â
Iâm just sick and tired of people who grew up in one of the empires and ultimately submit to the authority of CONCORD as capsuleers, but put the concept of âanarchyâ on a pedestal.
You think what people need is less rule of law? You must have noticed by now how absolutely barbaric and deranged the average capsuleer is with the lax regulation of us by CONCORD, right?
Without laws and enforcement of those laws ( both of which come from a government), people do terrible, horrible things regularly and donât think twice. As capsuleers, our ilk are the best example of what happens if the laws are too loose and lenient.
2 Likes
So-- this wonât be directly responsive, in a sense, maâam, but really weâre all pretty dependent on the complex system of laws set up to protect us. The law may not regulate us, but it does essentially create us. If anarchists are setting up structures for themselves within capsuleer society, itâs at least partly doable because the law establishes every capsuleer as functionally a (tyrannical?) despot ruling a tiny independent state.
Such states naturally exist and interact among themselves in a state of anarchy, so. . . .
1 Like
Yes, and what of those things are and do actually varies widely, and not all anarchists are actually opposed to all of them, and thatâs not the whole of anarchism; otherwise we would simply be âanti-governmentâ instead of âanarchist.â
I did? I do? Hm.
Personally, I donât find it very productive to get into a discussion out of a desire to vent frustration. Usually it just makes me more angry.
They tend to do them with those laws and enforcement of them in place as well. Sometimes the law helps and rewards them to do horrible things. Capsuleers do not spring up in nature; our very existence, our freedom to kill almost at will, and in a lot of cases be rewarded for it, had to be very specifically created by a government, and implemented by a great deal of law.
If thereâs a governing structure itâs not anarchy.
Iâm not arguing that anarchy cannot exist. It can.
I just hold anarchy to its definition, as a state of having no government and think itâs inferior to having a government, laws, and enforcement of them. Itâs not something to strive for.
I mean, an anarchist is somebody against the recognition of a governing authority. Being âfor anarchyâ and âagainst having any governmentâ are one in the same.
Many capsuleers kill even when punished.
Many capsuleers kill even when theyâve nothing to gain.
I agree that CONCORD doesnât properly incentivize the right things in many cases in regards to capsuleer regulation. But itâs not because theyâre regulating too much. They need to crack down harder.
1 Like
A vigorous assault at a position most anarchists do not hold on, the basis of a definition most anarchists themselves do not use seems⌠pointless.
I do appreciate that you at least seem to realize that authority can be mis-used, and isnât self-justifying.
Which is why Iâm pointing out the irony, maâam.
It may be possible to create an entity within capsuleer society that functions as an anarchy (and capsuleer society writ large does function that way, more or less) precisely and only because the legal framework exists to create that situation. Itâs also why many of the forces that ordinarily would cause a proper anarchy to almost immediately crystallize into something else donât function normally.
Iâm not saying that anarchy is a workable system for governing (or, I guess, âorganizingâ) humanity. Iâm saying just what you are, maâam: that the anarchy of capsuleer society is a result-- even a deliberate product-- of the laws that surround us.
If you want to refine a word that means âwithout governmentâ to mean âa different type of government,â then you can hardly be surprised when people donât know what you mean.
Yes, I do in-fact realize that an entity can govern poorly and misuse authority.
Indeed, what do words even mean.
Itâs been a pleasure talking to you.
Can confirm that the concept of âmisruleâ and corruption is a feature of even very authoritarian societies. Many strict hierarchies punish such things very severely-- at least in theory.
In practice, regularly, like, beheading people for incompetence or corruption creates a situation where the incompetent and/or corrupt will do anything to avoid being caught, which breeds more corruption. Restraint and moderation tends to make it more manageable, but doesnât paint a pretty picture for the public. So probably most places you end up with a few stand-out cases being very visibly punished to the fullest extent of the law and most being sort of politely relieved of power and pushed to the margins-- and maybe not even that.
I bet even the Angel Cartel has a corruption problem, even if they kind of try to be the very face of corruption itself. Itâs kind of a persistent headache for probably everybody but Sansha Kuvakei.
1 Like
Who is Bob?
I mean, itâs too broad and open-ended a question. Which Bob do I mean? Which government were you talking about? Because I certainly wasnât speaking about any specific government when I said that the tenets of a philosophy that espouses a complete lack of government does in fact, preclude legislation and crime.
Who is making legislation without a government? What binding power does it have that makes it actually legislation and not just a bunch of people going âwow, this is a good ideaâ?
I mean, if youâre talking about the broader conceptual argument? The government is the body with the power to enforce its will upon the populace. Different forms of government derive their authority from different philosophical sources, but in the end, it always comes down to âtheyâre the people who can enforce their will upon the massesâ. A government that canât enforce its will isnât a government.
At best, itâs an ineffectual body claiming to be a government while the people it claims to govern completely ignore it. Itâs not governing, though, so itâs not a government.