RE: The Truth About Anarchy: Past, Present and Future
Interesting point that the American Constitution contain laws the government should follow, but no specified punishment if they didnt not follow them.
Though to address your point of and anarthist system containing tyrants, gangs and warlords. Is an oxymorron I would say. As anarchy does not mean without rules, and for it to have any way to function, it would need rules to prevent it being taken over by archons. Meaning the moment any tyrant , warlord or gang leader emerges, that would then be against the rules set in place to keep it an anarchist system.
So if what you referred to was to happen, that when in that instant change it into not an anarchist system.
There is villages being established that is anarchist today, to work out ways it can work; like Liberland and Liberstad. And there is a town in Mexico that kicked the government out to organize itself and thus in essence is anarchist. where Luke from WeAreChange and Jeff from TheDollarVigilante went to see how it worked. And Luke is working on putting together a small documentary about it.
I wasn't implying that somehow just the Anarchist system contained tyrants, gangs and warlords, but that these types exist everywhere, and given half a chance will take over anywhere.
You say "it would need rules to prevent it being taken over by archons". So who would make these rules?
Presumably some group or groups would have to come together to establish these rules. Once that's been done you have a Government. since that's what a Government is. A group of people who establish the rules and laws for a society.
Governance means management which requires control, since it's not possible to manage something that you don't control.
It seems to me that you are right back in the situation of the founding fathers. So why try to re-invent the wheel when we can instead examine the Constitution and see when, where, how and why it has failed to live up to expectations and make any and all necessary adjustments so as to prevent such failures in the future.
It should be interesting to see Luke and Jeff's take on these experiments.
Govern (control) mente(mind) So not Quite the meaning you infer. Though in concept sure its Managerial structure. But a centralized one, not decentralized.
Who whould make the rules in an Anarchist Society? They whould be decided upon by consensus of all who takes part and enters into that society. I.E some core rules could be decided upon by the once that first start it. Then all who enter choose to either agree or take an interest in looking at the rules and talk it over with others in that society to see if they are good enough to server the people and freedom.
Though ofc if the mentality is too lazy of most of the once in an anarchist society, it can happen that a group takes over and manage to change it, but at that moment its no longer an anarchist society. So you could in a sense then say that; you cant prevent stupidity or ignorance.
So it does depend on the members having a sertain degree of integrity and responsability. Genuine people you could say. This is true in however we end up doing stuff if we are to come into any form of freedom.
SO if you want to define every individual in the society to be "the government" then thats up to you. But the concept is decentralized.
While how USA started may contain some aspects of what could also be the start of an anarchist society, how it was started was not decentralized and anarchist. It was a centralized hierarchy at the very beginning from what I understand. So its not quite reinventing the wheel.
Oh, and Liberstad and Liberland isnt Luke and Jeff's projects. Although Jeff is very much involved in Liberland if im not mistaken. They did however visit that village that got rid of theyre government. And documented stuff from that place that is yet to be released.
I appreciate you efforts to explain this, but I can't really see what's the difference between what the founding fathers did and what you're suggesting.
And if it worked in the way you explained it, I would expect it to come out with a set of rules similar if not identical to what they came out with, if it was to afford the maximum amount of freedom for the individual given the circumstances.i.e taking into account the likely presence of would be tyrants, gangsters, warlords, criminals etc.
I don't see how you make out that it would be decentralized. And if it was based on consensus it would of necessity be democratic in nature.
To my mind a Constitutional Republic with Direct Democracy similar to Switzerland (rather than a representative Democracy like in most Western countries)is probably the best solution to the Governance/Management problem.