In this day and age, I think it would be corporations. The void left by no government would be filled by the second most powerful entities, and those are most certainly corporations.

When I read "Market Forces" (scifi) I thought, very entertaining but completely unrealistic. In the absence of government, maybe not.

If there was no government, there would be no corporations. A corporation's power is dependent on the social framework a government creates. To give an example of what I mean, modern currencies are fiat, that is, they have value because various governments have declared them to have value. With the collapse of government, one of the chief sources of power for corporations, their immense liquid wealth, would become meaningless.

That's not to say that corporate entities wouldn't be able to adapt and fill the power vacuum, but they wouldn't resemble corporations as we know them today, and they likely wouldn't resemble some of the silly concoctions that you sometimes see in SF (_Venus Incorporated_, etc.)

I agree with you, but only because what you are saying is a tautology. If the government was vaporized, and some powerful corporations took over, there would be a new de facto government. The corporations would then have to be overthrown.

If a national government decided to let an independent fiat currency be developed by an independent corporation, and all the other corporations, such as banks, agreed to use that fiat currency, that currency would have the same value: you need it to trade for your needs because you get paid in it.

It is not clear why trade could not continue in the absence of the federal government, as all the banks would probably be willing to lend to corporations with good credit, and they would probably continue storing their reserves in those banks.

In other words, I think you assume too many magical steps.

Maybe Halliburton or Bechtel or Blackwater, they have the biggest weapons

this was downvoted, but it is true. Look at Somalia.

Exactly. Let's kill the farmer, that way we animals can run things for ourselves.

First of all, Somalia is not a great example of anarchy. All anarchists recognize that there needs to be significant social change before anarchism could happen; just toppling a government without changing the people leads to very, very bad things.[1]

Secondly, Somalia has done really well without government, depending on who you ask. There are studies that show [2] that it's only after the UN started screwing around and trying to impose a state that it stabilized into smaller, community-level governments. I'm no expert on Somalia, but you also have to recognize that when the institution of a state is recognized as the default condition, even a successful transition to anarchism would be talked about as 'failed.'

1: http://c4ss.org/content/2859

2: http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/artic...

I'm also not an expert on Somalia - thanks for pointing out that paper.

> All anarchists recognize that there needs to be significant social change before anarchism could happen

I would go further and point out that there needs to be significant physiological change before some kind of idealized anarchism could happen. Humans - no, primates - organize themselves into groups and leaders emerge. A multitude of small groups tends to lead to resource conflicts and enforced conformance within the groups.

The irony of anarchism is that in almost all dimensions you are more free under a centralized government. Belong to a minority religion or sexuality? Have fun with that one in a society lacking strong laws protecting all individuals. Don't like where you're living? Have fun moving across the country. Got poisoned by a negligent food manufacturer? Too damn bad.

There is always a tension between individuality and collectivity in governments. Like communism is the insane end of the scale for the latter, anarchism is the for former.

I am on the fence regarding the 'human nature' argument. From my personal experience, when interacting in smaller groups, people are basically good. It's only when the groups get larger that things go wrong. Also it's not as though this isn't the kind of thing that anarchist thinkers have heard and 'refuted' before.[1] I'm not sure I buy the argument, but that's one reason that 'ideals' are called such, eh?

> The irony of anarchism is that in almost all dimensions you are more free under a centralized government.

While I agree with your comment in spirit, there's a lot of real-world problems with this. Ask anyone with a minority sexuality if they feel protected by the law. And it's not just 'gay marriage' that I'm talking about, there's communities that are even further marginalized, like the polyamory community. Their lifestyle is explicitly illegal... Basically, all I'm saying is that this idea of equal protection under the law is the exact same as equal protection under anarchism: only an ideal.

> Like communism is the insane end of the scale for the latter, anarchism is the for former.

I've really come to dislike dualisms in politics, because the abstraction is always leaky. Anarchism is still a collectivist political philosophy, though it does focus a lot on the individual...

1: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA2.html#seca215

> I've really come to dislike dualisms in politics, because the abstraction is always leaky. Anarchism is still a collectivist political philosophy, though it does focus a lot on the individual.

Agreed - I have no trouble with "here are some ideas from anarchism which might be part of a solution." But "anarchism is the solution" seems like simple extremism to me.

With reference to esr's essay, if the diagnosis is demagoguery, I think education and basic social welfare are a better prescription than anarchism.

Good discussion and interesting points - thanks!

You too. HN is at its best in discussions like these. :)