Anarchists, what do you think?

Question

How would an anarchist regime deal with insurgence?

If anarchy is a system whereby we all engage in voluntary cooperation and sharing, how would we deal with insurgence of individuals or groups who fend for themselves at the expense of others?

How would we defend ourselves against outside threats that impose themselves upon us?

Do you feel that anarchy is achieveable given the current system we live in, and its increasing encrochement on human rights and civil liberties?

Answer 1

If you're talking about robbers, not insurgents, there have been many anarchist proposals on stopping or minimizing crime. (Of course, without the state criminalizing acts among consenting parties, and without monopolies depriving people of the means of subsistence, we get rid of most crimes of desperation.) Anarchists have proposed everything from shunning to vigilanteism to deal with the remainder; I would prefer non-violence, but most anarchists propose community militias, and some propose private protection agencies instead of or alongside them.

A handful of anarchist writings on protection:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#s...

James Guillaume: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv... (see section II.F, Security)

Benjamin Tucker: http://praxeology.net/BT-IOB-II-3.htm

Dyer Lum: http://praxeology.net/DL-EA-10.htm (see section IV, Personal Security)

Errico Malatesta: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Arc...

Answer 2

Human greed eliminates the effectiveness of an anarchist society.

Answer 3

I am not an anarchist, but a political science professor, so I cannot help but respond to this question and put in my few cents.  

First of all, "anarchist regime" is an oxymoron.  Regime refers to a form of government or regulated social system.  Anarchy, by its very definition, indicates an absence of any such system or government, instead opposing and eliminating such systems.  Not that you are necessarily misusing the word, but the schools of thought that have led you to ask this question are flawed.

Second, you are, however, misusing the word insurgence as it relates to anarchy.   Insurgence refers to rebellion.  There is nothing to rebel against in an anarchic system.  

Third, collectivist anarchy theory is just more drivel and mumbo jumbo that does not make sense.   Are people so blind as to believe that such a thing exists?  The very idea of social collectivism presupposes putting the needs of the collective above all else, which is essentially the very definition of a social order.  A non-individualist anarchy does not make any operational and idealistic sense.  Collectivist anarchy is just tribalism or primitive communism.  Let's call the spade a spade.

Fourth, I would argue that the impossibility of prolonged anarchy exponentially and compoundedly increases daily in an era of technological reliance.  In this day of electric lights, mass communication, and non-perpetually fueled automobiles, people look to and even take for granted these luxuries.  If government were to be removed, people would immediately seek to re-establish an order that preserves technology.  It would be at least a lifetime after the utter decimation of all technological infrastructure before anarchy would be achievable.

Answer 4

Humans are political animals -- hierarchical with pack mentalities.

Anarchy is antithetical to human nature.

Answer 5

no it isn't. Sorry. There are just to many selfish people in the world. Think of people that own companies that pay their employees little to nothing. Or outsource to a country where thay can pay children pennies a day. There are just to many people to make that work. Also I believe that with the degree of technological interdependence in todays world there needs to be governing bodies if only to maintain infrastructure.

Assuming that it did happen though, you would deal with insurgence by shooting them. That would be the only way.