Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Yes, I agree  I noticed I wrote something wrong in my post on stable states. I wrote that I think a society should raise living standards. What I really meant is that a society should increase the quality of life for the people living in it. For me sitting here in Norway, that's not a goal I think is best achieved by an anarchy, so my general stance is that I'm against it. |
Although that implies that there is a fixed set of ends for society as a whole. Sure that could be summed up in the premise of life quality, but I'm sensing that you're referring to the quality itself rather than the circumstances during wich the life quality can be raised for people in general through their own means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Another potential problem with anarchy is that it would be more vulnerable to tragedy of the commons, a term for when a common resource is depleted even though that depletion is not be in the interest of the people using that resource. If you tax a resource too much, that resource disappears. If you stop taxing it for the common good, then the people who are not as community minded and altruistic as you are get your piece of the cake. Without some authority to protect and divide common resources, it creates (yet again) an environment where exploiters and overtaxing is rewarded until there's nothing left. |
I'd say the tragedy of the commons is something - by necessity - prevalent in a lot of different societies, not least in Sweden (hello neighbour, by the way!). The problem with common resources is that they are common, i.e. not acknowledged as property of a certain individual/group of individuals, so the incitement to preserve it is virtually non-existent. That's what has happened with the Baltic Sea for instance, with the over-fishing and over-fertilization, and that is what happens when the state expropriate property and doesn't allow us to care for it ourselves. I, for one, cringe at the oh-so-widespread notion that 'we all own it collectively' to which I use to reply something like 'Oh really? Where do I sell off my part then?'.
But now we're heading away from the anarchy discussion. My main problem with anarchy is the absence of a neutral jurisdictional institution that guards over the individual rights of everyone, something I as a libertarian identify as crucial in any social system since noone can ever be sure that everyone will act peacefully and not exercise violence over others to get their way.