We already live in anarchy

[Bono]

States are criminal organisations. There would undoubtedly be crime even in anarchy. Therefore we already live in anarchy!

Elaborating:
Anarchy means the absense of a state, not the absense of violence. There would undoubtedly be robbers, rapists, and murderers even in anarchy. What is a state? A machinery of violence, a system used by some people to kill or enslave others or steal their property. How is this different from organised crime like La Cosa Nostra? It isn't. La Cosa Nostra might exist in anarchy, therefore an identical organisation, different in name only, might also exist. It sounds like an oxymoron to say that states might exist in anarchy, but this is only because people are used to thinking of states as something other than criminal organisations. 'States' are not a meaningful category because there is no difference between states and criminal organisations. If the existence of La Cosa Nostra doesn't refute anarchy, neither does the existence of a state. Therefore ANARCHY IS THE EXISTING FORM OF SOCIETY. There is NO WAY there could ever be any OTHER form of society than anarchy.

 The above is not the mainstream anarcho-capitalist/market-anarchist view.

Most anarchists would define anarchy as the absence of coercive control. We don't live in anarchy if a state has power over us. But this doesn't change the fact that there is no difference between states and organised crime like La Cosa Nostra. Thousands of people in Sicily live under the coercive control of La Cosa Nostra. If the existence of coercive control refutes the existence of anarchy, this means that anarchy doesn't exist as long as La Cosa Nostra exists. People pay money for the Mafia's 'protection'. How is this different from taxation? It isn't. Either the state is a mafia or the Mafia is a state.

[KillerPollo]

States are criminal organisations. There would undoubtedly be crime even in anarchy. Therefore we already live in anarchy!

Elaborating:
Anarchy means the absense of a state, not the absense of violence. There would undoubtedly be robbers, rapists, and murderers even in anarchy. What is a state? A machinery of violence, a system used by some people to kill or enslave others or steal their property. How is this different from organised crime like La Cosa Nostra? It isn't. La Cosa Nostra might exist in anarchy, therefore an identical organisation, different in name only, might also exist. It sounds like an oxymoron to say that states might exist in anarchy, but this is only because people are used to thinking of states as something other than criminal organisations. 'States' are not a meaningful category because there is no difference between states and criminal organisations. If the existence of La Cosa Nostra doesn't refute anarchy, neither does the existence of a state. Therefore ANARCHY IS THE EXISTING FORM OF SOCIETY. There is NO WAY there could ever be any OTHER form of society than anarchy.

 The above is not the mainstream anarcho-capitalist/market-anarchist view.

Most anarchists would define anarchy as the absence of coercive control. We don't live in anarchy if a state has power over us. But this doesn't change the fact that there is no difference between states and organised crime like La Cosa Nostra. Thousands of people in Sicily live under the coercive control of La Cosa Nostra. If the existence of coercive control refutes the existence of anarchy, this means that anarchy doesn't exist as long as La Cosa Nostra exists. People pay money for the Mafia's 'protection'. How is this different from taxation? It isn't. Either the state is a mafia or the Mafia is a state.

Awesome post. Tell that to those sad Emo kids who wear Anarchy Tshirts and want to cut their wrists.

[Giant Saguaro]

Haha, good. People with a Comm background would better identify and defend the logical fallacy than me, but I'm pretty sure it's "faulty sign." Because crime exists doesn't mean we're in a state of anarchy. Anarchy means there is officially no government, and we have a government.

[Gabu]

States are criminal organisations. There would undoubtedly be crime even in anarchy. Therefore we already live in anarchy!

Elaborating:
Anarchy means the absense of a state, not the absense of violence. There would undoubtedly be robbers, rapists, and murderers even in anarchy. What is a state? A machinery of violence, a system used by some people to kill or enslave others or steal their property. How is this different from organised crime like La Cosa Nostra? It isn't. La Cosa Nostra might exist in anarchy, therefore an identical organisation, different in name only, might also exist. It sounds like an oxymoron to say that states might exist in anarchy, but this is only because people are used to thinking of states as something other than criminal organisations. 'States' are not a meaningful category because there is no difference between states and criminal organisations. If the existence of La Cosa Nostra doesn't refute anarchy, neither does the existence of a state. Therefore ANARCHY IS THE EXISTING FORM OF SOCIETY. There is NO WAY there could ever be any OTHER form of society than anarchy.

 The above is not the mainstream anarcho-capitalist/market-anarchist view.

Most anarchists would define anarchy as the absence of coercive control. We don't live in anarchy if a state has power over us. But this doesn't change the fact that there is no difference between states and organised crime like La Cosa Nostra. Thousands of people in Sicily live under the coercive control of La Cosa Nostra. If the existence of coercive control refutes the existence of anarchy, this means that anarchy doesn't exist as long as La Cosa Nostra exists. People pay money for the Mafia's 'protection'. How is this different from taxation? It isn't. Either the state is a mafia or the Mafia is a state.

I see you've given up even attempting to make sense.

[Bono]

Haha, good. People with a Comm background would better identify and defend the logical fallacy than me, but I'm pretty sure it's "faulty sign." Because crime exists doesn't mean we're in a state of anarchy. Anarchy means there is officially no government, and we have a government.

The only dfference between the state and the cosa nostra is that one has an aura of legitimacy around it. Wendy McElroy has aproached that isue in her essay Desmystifying the State. Thus, the people who no longer recognize the legitimacy of the state live in anarchy, except it is one with a very high crime rate.

[Gabu]

I'm having a difficult time summarizing the argument given.  From what I can tell, stripping out all of the essentially meaningless rhetoric and repetition, it looks something like this:

Premises:

1. The government is no different than the mafia (offered entirely 100% proof free, as if it were an accepted fact that everyone knows).
2. The mafia can exist in an anarchy.

Deduction:

??????

Conclusion:

We live in an anarchy.

---

Even if it were true that the government is exactly the same as the mafia, the fact that a mafia can exist in an anarchy coupled with the fact that a mafia exists does not exactly logically imply that we have an anarchy.  In terms of symbolic logic, the ability of p and q to both be true does not mean that one implies the other; it only means that one does not imply the negation of the other.

[John Dibble]

Well, the logical result of anarchy is government, so I suppose it's technically correct.

Suppose we destroyed all governments, and were suddenly living in anarchy. Soon, criminal gangs start terrorizing the area, eventually enslaving people. These gangs are essentially tyrannical governments. Possibly, some groups of law abiding citizens band together to protect themselves from these gangs. These bands of citizens form rules, and are also governments, though likely less tyrannical. So, anarchy leads to government.

[Gabu]

Well, the logical result of anarchy is government, so I suppose it's technically correct.

How is it technically correct?  As far as I can tell, it's saying "governments are like mafias, therefore no government exists", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  "Anarchy" implies no government whatsoever, and we clearly do have governments.  If mafias are equivalent to governments, all that means is that we have more than one government, not that our government somehow ceases to be a government when we decide to arbitrarily give it a different name.

[John Dibble]

Well, the logical result of anarchy is government, so I suppose it's technically correct.

How is it technically correct?  As far as I can tell, it's saying "governments are like mafias, therefore no government exists", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  "Anarchy" implies no government whatsoever, and we clearly do have governments.  If mafias are equivalent to governments, all that means is that we have more than one government, not that our government somehow ceases to be a government when we decide to arbitrarily give it a different name.

Well, government is essentially a force that imposes it's will on others, in that way it is like a Mafia.