DgtizeD

After an extended argument about the potential for anarchy to exist as a system of government, I changed my view of what anarchy is. The way I generally thought of Anarchy was of the total lack of government. Which I believe can exist — however it quickly evolves (or devolves depending on point of view) into some form of state. It does this because at some point some sort of conflict occurs, which requires mediation, which results in the formation of a system of government.

The new perspective I developed last night is that anarchy always exists in society. In fact, it is the continuous state of all societies. However, at some point some form of mediation is required, and the existing state is called in. Or, the situation which is perhaps more troublesome are the cases where the existing state decides to preempt control by negating the state of anarchy that is present in day to day interactions.

So essentially we always live in anarchy, and we never live in anarchy. Meaning we always live in anarchy to the degree that people are capable of living together without governmental control structures. Yet since mediation is frequently required a state always exists, and depending on the state it forces itself more or less frequently on it’s people.

Governments are full of rules — but the idea of the “level of anarchy” is the degree to which the people choose to follow these rules. The existence of rules has little effect on if they are followed. Nor does the enforcement of laws, that only has effect insomuch as people believe in the enforcement. Really, the power of the state exists only to the extent that people believe in it. In times of calm, this requires little effort, in times of chaos, the effort of the state(s) involved must be stronger. Therefor, anarchy exists only as much as people believe in it. If they believe they live in a state, they live in a state. If they believe they do not, then so long as their belief does not result in a conflict with the beliefs of others, they live in a state of anarchy.

So in retrospect the kid I was arguing with was right — he lives in a state of anarchy. He lives in anarchy as much as he believes he lives in anarchy. At the same time, he does not live in anarchy as much as the rest of society does not believe he lives in anarchy.