> One is to have a militia to enforce those kinds of principles.
How is that not a government?
> Another option is to claim that in a society where everyone's needs were met, there'd be no desire by anyone towards private property, and that the desire for private property is a historically conditioned product of capitalism, and feudalism before that.
I'd like a society that can plausibly exist in the world as it is now, thanks.
> Another argument is that it wouldn't much matter as long as the default state was no private property.
This would work on a small scale in the presence of massive social pressure to conform. All anarchy seems to be predicated on the existence of massive peer pressure to conform to their social norms, and we all know where not being able to question peer pressure leads.
> Proudhon would actually say that a family's household is an empowering, important kind of property which must be protected and preserved. Ownership of capital, however, Proudhon objected to, because it allowed, in his view, for those who owned the factories, machinery, mills, and plantations to present those who had no stake in the means of production to either work for one of them or to fend for themselves.
This is incoherent because it tries to force a distinction where none exists. The very existence of cottage industries and family farms puts the lie to the concept.
In other words: My family farm is empowering until I hire on my first field hand to help bring in a big harvest, at which point I become an evil capitalist oppressor.
You could call it that. But most anarchists are not opposed to the existence of structures of government, but rather the existence of the nation-state.
> I'd like a society that can plausibly exist in the world as it is now, thanks.
Okay, now you're being much more specific.
> This would work on a small scale in the presence of massive social pressure to conform. All anarchy seems to be predicated on the existence of massive peer pressure to conform to their social norms, and we all know where not being able to question peer pressure leads.
I'm not sure; where does it lead? ;) But really, we already have massive social pressure to conform, that's how societies work. Anarchism doesn't get rid of that. Anarchism isn't utopianism, or at least not only utopianism.
> This is incoherent because it tries to force a distinction where none exists. The very existence of cottage industries and family farms puts the lie to the concept.
What do you mean? Distinctions never exist a priori, they're always conceptual tools for the sake of delimiting between situations.
> In other words: My family farm is empowering until I hire on my first field hand to help bring in a big harvest, at which point I become an evil capitalist oppressor.
Not quite; according to most anarchists you're still kosher, unless the renumeration you give that field hand is worth significantly less than the surplus value you obtained via his cooperation. Moreover, most anarchists object to an entire society being based on that model, not simply the existence of it.
Again, I'm not saying these are all 100% coherent or viable political options, I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of an anarchist position.
> unless the renumeration you give that field hand is worth significantly less than the surplus value you obtained via his cooperation.
So... how do we figure that? Seriously: How do we do the math in every possible case to ensure I'm not exploiting the person who freely agreed to work for me?
> Moreover, most anarchists object to an entire society being based on that model, not simply the existence of it.
Most anarchists need to study the Sorites paradox.
> But most anarchists are not opposed to the existence of structures of government, but rather the existence of the nation-state.
This means there still would be a hierarchy based on the fact that, one, a government with no ability to make binding resolutions is pointless; two, unless some group has the ability to veto others the body gets mired in endless debate due to bikeshedding; three, despite the previous point, most people don't want to govern nearly as much as they want to argue over the trivial things they feel entitled to have an opinion on, so trying to even things out by putting everyone into government would require a draft backed by, you guessed it, the threat of force.
> Again, I'm not saying these are all 100% coherent or viable political options, I'm just trying to articulate my understanding of an anarchist position.
I understand this. I wonder what someone who actually believed in this would be saying.
"So... how do we figure that? Seriously: How do we do the math in every possible case to ensure I'm not exploiting the person who freely agreed to work for me?"
By "freely agreed", do you mean it in the restricted sense that the worker was not physically coerced to work?
> By "freely agreed", do you mean it in the restricted sense that the worker was not physically coerced to work?
Only as a first step; it has to be more complex than that, which is one reason unions exist (in the ideal world with ideal unions that accurately represent the needs of the people they represent).
> In other words: My family farm is empowering until I hire on my first field hand to help bring in a big harvest, at which point I become an evil capitalist oppressor.
How does a homestead become owned? Many accounts for such a transition tend toward some labor-mixing theory. But then the field owner invites someone else to mix their labor with the field and that mechanism is now denied to the new person. Why does an appeal to labor-mixing confer ownership in one instance but not any part of it in the other?
> Why does an appeal to labor-mixing confer ownership in one instance but not any part of it in the other?
You can't say that in general: I could hire on the hand for partial ownership in the farm. However, the actual answer is that the hand freely agreed to the deal and does not want partial ownership of a family farm.
How is that not a government?
> Another option is to claim that in a society where everyone's needs were met, there'd be no desire by anyone towards private property, and that the desire for private property is a historically conditioned product of capitalism, and feudalism before that.
I'd like a society that can plausibly exist in the world as it is now, thanks.
> Another argument is that it wouldn't much matter as long as the default state was no private property.
This would work on a small scale in the presence of massive social pressure to conform. All anarchy seems to be predicated on the existence of massive peer pressure to conform to their social norms, and we all know where not being able to question peer pressure leads.
> Proudhon would actually say that a family's household is an empowering, important kind of property which must be protected and preserved. Ownership of capital, however, Proudhon objected to, because it allowed, in his view, for those who owned the factories, machinery, mills, and plantations to present those who had no stake in the means of production to either work for one of them or to fend for themselves.
This is incoherent because it tries to force a distinction where none exists. The very existence of cottage industries and family farms puts the lie to the concept.
In other words: My family farm is empowering until I hire on my first field hand to help bring in a big harvest, at which point I become an evil capitalist oppressor.