Tyrranny or Anarchy?

[Ramo]

But there was no clear, legitimate claim, which is what matters.

The same applied to numerous princes.

In both Inca and aztec societies the Nobles cliam divine authority, specially in the Inca authority which was more feudal. In fact, I can't think of any feudal societies in which the nobles claimed that the general legitmacy of their claism came from divine sources. Can you name me any?

The thing is, divine authority doesn't always come from the prince. In Europe, it came from the Pope. Usurping a prince would in no way cause the peasants to realize they should revolt, etc.

Policy and Law are not the same.

Yes, they are. Policies are sets of laws. There may be a different basic set of laws, but that's not very relevant. Continuity of policy/law/whatever is not necessarily seen as legitimate (i.e. if the prince's predecessor was a centralizer).

The Taliban came to power seeking to create a state based on the Koran and Sharia Law, which makes the system they sought fundamentally different from those government of the past.

And they had divine legitimization to take over (according to some). How is that different from the bloodline of a prince?

I never said their government was inefficient (government? in an anarchy?) but I can say that it could not survive long-term in a system of states.

I said ineffective, not ineffecient. And yes, there is government in an anarchy. That's what I've been trying to tell you and everyone else in this thread. And you haven't addressed my post. What you're saying is incredibly naive.

The failure of the Anarchist to get backing from any outside power speaks to their great weakness. After all, none of the dmeocracies lifted a finger to help them, and I doubt they ever would have.

Authority doesn't like freedom. That's why they didn't help (though, you should note they had plenty of volunteers). I don't consider it a weakness that the anarchists didn't whore themselves to an authoritarian state like the Stalinists did. I find that a strength.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
The same applied to numerous princes.

Which? A prince though of as coming to power illegitimately was almost always challanged, even if the challange failed.

The thing is, divine authority doesn't always come from the prince. In Europe, it came from the Pope. Usurping a prince would in no way cause the peasants to realize they should revolt, etc.

The pope crowned the Emperor, who then bestowed power on Kings, who then so forth and so on... and besides,the whole who's Gods servant on earth bit came to conflict in europe by the 1200 with the Hohenstaufen emperors battling popes. A Noble may call a prince in person illigitimate, but they would never quesion the need for the post, and a theoretical ruler above them.

Yes, they are. Policies are sets of laws. There may be a different basic set of laws, but that's not very relevant. Continuity of policy/law/whatever is not necessarily seen as legitimate (i.e. if the prince's predecessor was a centralizer).

No they aren't. Policies are a set of actions based on ones beliefs and ideologies, framed by the comon laws. If any president tried to enact a policy contrary to the Constitution it basic legitmacy would be questioned. A prince may seek to centralize powers lost by a weak predecessor, but he will only usually seek to gain back powers laready bestowed long ago by the system: not gain new powers by chnaging the basic statues of goverment and the government charter. princes who try that are seeking to change the system itself, and usualy meet resistance, though many times they win.

And they had divine legitimization to take over (according to some). How is that different from the bloodline of a prince?

You seem not to understand. The taliban took power not by pledging to bring back order and restore X- code of laws that used to rule the state before a collapse of effective central power: they denounced any previous codes of governence in the state and sought to impose a new one: this ia a revolutionary change in politics, a revolution of sorts.

I said ineffective, not ineffecient. And yes, there is government in an anarchy. That's what I've been trying to tell you and everyone else in this thread. And you haven't addressed my post. What you're saying is incredibly naive.

Then you continue to resist the dictionary definition of the word. As for being naive: hardly. It seem to me I am the one harping on the importance of reality.

Authority doesn't like freedom. That's why they didn't help (though, you should note they had plenty of volunteers). I don't consider it a weakness that the anarchists didn't whore themselves to an authoritarian state like the Stalinists did. I find that a strength.

all governments, including democratic ones, and your 'anarchist government' have authority, otherwise they are not governments. What i meant was the fact that the anarchists could not gain support from any government, like the UK, US, France, so forth, shows that the experiment was doomed.

[Ramo]

Which? A prince though of as coming to power illegitimately was almost always challanged, even if the challange failed.

That's exactly my point. What if he's challenged? So were the factions in Somalia and Afghanistan. Hence, no significant difference.

the whole who's Gods servant on earth bit came to conflict in europe by the 1200 with the Hohenstaufen emperors battling popes.

Yep, and the Empire didn't face huge peasant rebellions due to the its opposition to the Pope. Which is precisely my point.

You seem not to understand. The taliban took power not by pledging to bring back order and restore X- code of laws that used to rule the state before a collapse of effective central power: they denounced any previous codes of governence in the state and sought to impose a new one: this ia a revolutionary change in politics, a revolution of sorts.

I understand perfectly. This was seen by some as legitimization of their rule. Just like a prince's ancenstors might be seen as the legitimization of his rule.

Then you continue to resist the dictionary definition of the word.

I'm using the definition that anarchists used throughout history, and what anarchists currently.

As for being naive: hardly. It seem to me I am the one harping on the importance of reality

Some reality you have. You're saying that because anarchists were crushed only after overwhelming force, anarchism is not realistic. That's naive.

all governments, including democratic ones, and your 'anarchist government' have authority,

Never said otherwise.

By authority, I mean a lot of authority. None of the "democratic" governments liked anarchism because they didn't like freedom.

What i meant was the fact that the anarchists could not gain support from any government, like the UK, US, France, so forth, shows that the experiment was doomed.

It was by no means doomed. If a number of things went differently, the end would've turned out very differently (for instance, if Republican Spain allowed Morrocco independence). Of course, Germany, the USSR or the US, etc. may have invaded.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's exactly my point. What if he's challenged? So were the factions in Somalia and Afghanistan. Hence, no significant difference.

No. A Nobler may say that the person was illegitimate, but if they sought to depose the rpince, they sought to put anoither one in. That is not what happened in Somalia or afghanistan.

Yep, and the Empire didn't face huge peasant rebellions due to the its opposition to the Pope. Which is precisely my point.

No. All legitimacy came from God- the question was whether God sought to excersise temporal power through the pope of the Emperor. That was the dispute, not whether the system was legitimate because of divinity.

I understand perfectly. This was seen by some as legitimization of their rule. Just like a prince's ancenstors might be seen as the legitimization of his rule.

No. The Taliban sought to change what the legitimate source of power was,claiming it to be from scripture. that was a revoltionary claim, and thus nothing like the prince notion you state, which is someone trying to regain old powers of the same system with the basis for legitimacy unchanged.

Some reality you have. You're saying that because anarchists were crushed only after overwhelming force, anarchism is not realistic. That's naive.

The reality i am using is that no post-gatheirng society that has organized itself around your definition of anarchy has lasted long. our bad that this experiemnt was cut short and not allowed to last long enough to see what else would have kiled it.

By authority, I mean a lot of authority. None of the "democratic" governments liked anarchism because they didn't like freedom.

So now different definition of freedom as well.

It was by no means doomed. If a number of things went differently, the end would've turned out very differently (for instance, if Republican Spain allowed Morrocco independence). Of course, Germany, the USSR or the US, etc. may have invaded.

We have no way of knowing how long the experiment might have lasted under different cirumstances, but we can say that under the givenm circumstances it failed. You claim those circumstances were impossible to survive: I agree, but I agree because I don't think an anarchist experiment could survive in this modern world.

[Ramo]

No. A Nobler may say that the person was illegitimate, but if they sought to depose the rpince, they sought to put anoither one in. That is not what happened in Somalia or afghanistan.

No. The new "prince" was the Taliban.

No. All legitimacy came from God- the question was whether God sought to excersise temporal power through the pope of the Emperor. That was the dispute, not whether the system was legitimate because of divinity.

Right. However, the point is that peasants didn't rebel because the Emperor was opposing the Pope. Likewise, the peasants simply didn't care that much about the religious implications of deposing princes. It wasn't that big a deal for peasants.

No. The Taliban sought to change what the legitimate source of power was,claiming it to be from scripture. that was a revoltionary claim, and thus nothing like the prince notion you state, which is someone trying to regain old powers of the same system with the basis for legitimacy unchanged.

Whether the change is "revolutionary" or not is irrelevent. The Taliban sought legitimacy in the Qu'ran, which is not objectively different from any other claim of legitimacy.

The reality i am using is that no post-gatheirng society that has organized itself around your definition of anarchy has lasted long. our bad that this experiemnt was cut short and not allowed to last long enough to see what else would have kiled it.

It's naive to draw a conclusion in the longevity of these societeis from the small sample and extreme biases in these examples.

So now different definition of freedom as well.

I think freedom is the minimization of public and private authority. You might not share the definition, but it is not objectively worse than yours.

We have no way of knowing how long the experiment might have lasted under different cirumstances, but we can say that under the givenm circumstances it failed. You claim those circumstances were impossible to survive: I agree, but I agree because I don't think an anarchist experiment could survive in this modern world.

You want more examples with longer longevity? Early rural Northern US was quite anarchist, and that lasted quite long (until the protectionists and pro-coroporate welfare elements of the government took over). Or Midieval Iceland to a large extent, where anarchism lasted a couple centuries.