Is the movie "The Seven Samurai" a potential example of an anarchic society?

[DaVinci]

For those who have not seen the movie I recommend watching it as it is a classic. For those who have, or don't know the story, but don't want to watch the movie, the plot centers around a group of farmers who hire samurai to protect them from an army of bandits who have come to steal their harvest, and take their women.

 

So, in the case of this movie are the Samurai an example of a DRO? Granted the world that the Seven Samurai takes place in has a government, but within the bubble of the story all we see are peasant rice farmers, samurai, and bandits and the dispute surrounding the farmers rice and well being. Is this an example of how an anarchic society might function? Would a DRO function on the level of hiring samurai? Even in situations like this one which are incredibly violent?

[Livemike]

Ok, firstly it has to be said it's a complete ripoff of "The Magnificent Seven".

Just kidding.

 

But they aren't really a DRO.  They're mercenaries.  It's an example of a non-state solution to a problem, and it's implicitly condemning the State, after all, they hired mercenaries because the state was effectively absent.  Although I'm sure they still collected taxes from the peasants. 

[dsayers]

I work as a private investigator who mostly does security work (patrols, alarm response, bodyguard). When I'm patrolling a property or responding to an alarm on a property, it's at the behest of the property owner. It's their property, they have the right to protect it, so they have the ability to give that right to others. This is really important to understand because I get asked from time to time how I can regard police as institutionalized aggression when I perform what they feel is a functionally identical role.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the posts here. "DRO" is undefined, so a discussion about it wouldn't be very useful. As I understand it, it would sort of be like an insurance company. Obviously insurance companies are more profitable the less they have to pay out. So for example, I've heard of car insurance companies that charge less for non-smokers. The idea being that if you're not chasing an errant cigarette butt, you won't be taking your eyes off of the road. This incentivizes motorists to not smoke, which leads to them having to pay out less overall.

 

Since I mentioned my line of work, I'll give an example from my own experiences. When I'm doing an ATM run (providing protection for an ATM technician), they want my firearm and badge to be overtly displayed. At night, they even want me wearing a fluorescent vest. While I'm equipped to handle the eventuality of the tech being attacked, these steps are taken to incentivize people to not even try. It would be a lot less costly for all involved to avoid an attack than to survive one.

 

What all of this means is that somebody somewhere has crunched the numbers and decided that they make more money having ATMs than not, even including the expense of an armed guard during servicing. This happens today, even in the "presence" of a state. Which is another reason why I'm not sure as to how productive a conversation about a currently fictional entity (DRO) is helpful while present day versions are already in place.

[Magnus]

I'm not sure the seven samurai are an example of a DRO, but the bandits are a perfect example of a state. 

 

They just need to (a) wear nicer clothes, (b) be a little more systematic about how they steal from the farmers, and © develop a solid body of propaganda about how their pillaging campaign is for the farmers' own good. Presto!  Instant statism.

[shirgall]

Kurosawa must have hated the state in some small way. Beyond the examples of the absent state in the Seven Samurai (those ronin are leaderless samurai), Yojimbo features a magistrate coming to town, which effective stops the feud of the families warring over a small town. They spend their time making the town look perfect for him, and bribing him and his people. The local mayor is completely ineffective. Etc. etc. The setting is the period after brutal wars between various potentates all over Japan (which he covers somewhat in Ran, a remake of King Lear set in Japan) so it may have been effectively ruler-less, but I wouldn't call it the ideal state of liberty.

[DaVinci]

Ok, firstly it has to be said it's a complete ripoff of "The Magnificent Seven".

Just kidding.

 

But they aren't really a DRO.  They're mercenaries.  It's an example of a non-state solution to a problem, and it's implicitly condemning the State, after all, they hired mercenaries because the state was effectively absent.  Although I'm sure they still collected taxes from the peasants.

 

  

 

So what would be the difference between a "dispute resolution organization" and a mercenary if they both sometimes are hired as security/protection? Granted a mercenary has a reputation of being more openly hostile and uses questionable methods, but does that description really fit someone hired to defend property? Would DRO's be limited to non-violent interactions? Would it be different if the samurai were already advertising themselves as "security for hire"?

 

I work as a private investigator who mostly does security work (patrols, alarm response, bodyguard). When I'm patrolling a property or responding to an alarm on a property, it's at the behest of the property owner. It's their property, they have the right to protect it, so they have the ability to give that right to others. This is really important to understand because I get asked from time to time how I can regard police as institutionalized aggression when I perform what they feel is a functionally identical role.

 

I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the posts here. "DRO" is undefined, so a discussion about it wouldn't be very useful. As I understand it, it would sort of be like an insurance company. Obviously insurance companies are more profitable the less they have to pay out. So for example, I've heard of car insurance companies that charge less for non-smokers. The idea being that if you're not chasing an errant cigarette butt, you won't be taking your eyes off of the road. This incentivizes motorists to not smoke, which leads to them having to pay out less overall.

 

Since I mentioned my line of work, I'll give an example from my own experiences. When I'm doing an ATM run (providing protection for an ATM technician), they want my firearm and badge to be overtly displayed. At night, they even want me wearing a fluorescent vest. While I'm equipped to handle the eventuality of the tech being attacked, these steps are taken to incentivize people to not even try. It would be a lot less costly for all involved to avoid an attack than to survive one.

 

What all of this means is that somebody somewhere has crunched the numbers and decided that they make more money having ATMs than not, even including the expense of an armed guard during servicing. This happens today, even in the "presence" of a state. Which is another reason why I'm not sure as to how productive a conversation about a currently fictional entity (DRO) is helpful while present day versions are already in place.

In this case it is comparing one fictional example to another to see how they might compare and contrast. Especially given that in the movie you have the story taking place effectively in the "absence" of government. So, yeah, practical examples from our world today might not be too much help in talking about a movie, or how a future society might function, but in terms of movies it is the closest thing I have seen to something that would resemble how a future society might handle an extreme situation. In the case of your job I wonder how much your duties would really change in a stateless society?

 

 

I'm not sure the seven samurai are an example of a DRO, but the bandits are a perfect example of a state. 

 

They just need to (a) wear nicer clothes, (b) be a little more systematic about how they steal from the farmers, and © develop a solid body of propaganda about how their pillaging campaign is for the farmers' own good. Presto!  Instant statism.

  

Kurosawa must have hated the state in some small way. Beyond the examples of the absent state in the Seven Samurai (those ronin are leaderless samurai), Yojimbo features a magistrate coming to town, which effective stops the feud of the families warring over a small town. They spend their time making the town look perfect for him, and bribing him and his people. The local mayor is completely ineffective. Etc. etc. The setting is the period after brutal wars between various potentates all over Japan (which he covers somewhat in Ran, a remake of King Lear set in Japan) so it may have been effectively ruler-less, but I wouldn't call it the ideal state of liberty.

If I remember correctly Kurosawa said that the speech Kikuchiyo gives the samurai was his way of apologizing for what those in his family lineage did in the past. Given the way he preferred a more realistic approach to depicting violence I can see how he might have had some very strong feelings about the way society works.

 

I think you are probably right about the bandits. Do you agree with the above posts that the samurai are essentially mercenaries? What separates a mercenary from a security guard? Or from a member of a private army?