Why and how would Anarchy work? Question.

Yeah, maybe relative political balance compared with previous times. Just because it is 'more' balanced than before does not mean it is actually balanced.
I wouldn't call our world of war, inequality, genocide, famine and poverty balance.

The cycle of war and peace is a product of our corrupt economic system. We don't have to put aside our differences for anarchism to 'work', we simply just need to extinguish the irrational behavior of trying to impose our differences on others (which is NOT a universal human trait). Yes, YOU would kill someone to gain power, because you have developed in a culture that has conditioned you to try and gain power and exploit other human beings. You are a product of your environment. Again, this is NOT our inherent nature. This is irrational and is a product of our corrupt system. Like I said before, there would really be no reason to "rise up" in a free society, as the 'bottom' would not be deprived like in our present system, and the 'top' would be no better.

Modern psychology and sociology is based off of observations of modern men who have been conditioned in OUR culture, not humanity in general. It is only valid to individuals living in our present bloodthirsty system.

Small groups?? Haven't you heard about the collectives of the Spanish Civil War!? There were over a million people all cooperating and working as functional districts. Factories, health care, education- ALL were being run in the absence of your beloved law and hierarchy.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If there was a sustaining anarchy a dominant structured government would whipe you off the map.

Which is why we need to develop a consciousness among the population. Like I said before, the authoritarian has no influence without numbers. Only a deluded population would support such a dominant structured government geared towards destruction and war. AND, this is competitive hierachical thinking, which seems to be your conditioned frame of mind. Only someone conditioned in a system of competition would gear to conquer everyone they could with might.

The key to successful anarchy is a strong government.

WHAT MAJIC, honestly explain that, please, that makes no sense what so ever, a strong government completely defies the purpose of anarchy?!?

Strong self-government maybe. But yeah, a strong centralized government is fscism, which is the opposite of anarchism.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 6-10-2006 by the_individualist]

[edit on 6-10-2006 by the_individualist]

Belling The Cat

I'm something of a fan of irony.

One of my more harsh criticisms of what passes for Anarchism is that actually implementing it would require some sort of organized force or coercion, because it's pretty clear that humanity isn't going to voluntarily or spontaneously come to agreement on implementing anarchy.

Even Anarchists can't agree on what Anarchism actually is, let alone how to actually bring it about. It's tragically comical, really.

But please don't take my skepticism the wrong way.

I'm a Libertarian.

I know all about having political views that will never be put into practice.

At least we believe in something.



[edit on 10/6/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
One of my more harsh criticisms of what passes for Anarchism is that actually implementing it would require some sort of organized force or coercion, because it's pretty clear that humanity isn't going to voluntarily or spontaneously come to agreement on implementing anarchy.

Which is why we need to develop a consciousness of autonomy and organization as a population. A prominent reason many would not want an anarchist society is because they are influenced by the myth that it would lead to 'chaos' and be a 'fight for survival'. But, yes, even after this self-realization occurs, coercive force (inherently non-anarchist) would be required to dismantle the elite currently in power. It could be argued, however, that this coercive force, by abolishing coercion for good, is justified, and so anti-hierachical.

Even Anarchists can't agree on what Anarchism actually is, let alone how to actually bring it about. It's tragically comical, really.

Right, I think that how a free society will come into being is under debate. Some want an abrupt revolution, others want to "evolve" the present society into a free one. I think once a free society is in existence, though, it won't matter what some think anarchism is or isn't, as everyone would be free to experiment on their own terms. Anarcho-communist? Fine, go start a commune. Individualist? Fine, go live and provide for yourself. Anarcho-primitivist? Great, go run off naked and live off the land. I forget what this concept was termed, where different systems of living coexist and the individual chooses which one he wants to live in. But just because people don't see eye for eye doesn't mean an anarchist society is unfeasible. People only try to shove their beliefs down others' throats under our current system because they derive benefit from it. In a non-capitalistic society, there would be none to gain from this behavior.

OK, I want to end this thread because it is pretty much two people going back and forth..

Anarchism in the way your talking is Communism, which is a great form of government but impossible to form.

Anarchism IS communism, every one is equal and their are no differences, I admit I would love to live in a society where it appeared as a utopian society but I honestly feel it is impossible, because like Magic said everyone would have to spontaniously believe in anarchism and put aside all differences. Believe what you want, but I really think that Anarchist have this view that because they feel government is opressive to the minority, which in few cases do the minority actually rule, that all government is bad. Even if the governments of the world do injust actions like say they impliment 9/11, does not mean they do not act for the benifit of the majority.

Anarchy is impossible because of the way humans act, and because there are way to many humans. I repsect your views, I personally believe we both deserve an applause for presenting and defending our views to the end but this argument, between the two of us anyways, will go no where.

Anarchy is like Communism and Socialism. Great in theory, piss poor in practice. It places too much onus on the individual. If every individual took ownership in his/her place in the world, all 3 of these types of government would be utopian. That's not about to happen though. People think "anarchy" is about doing what you want, it isn't. It's about responsibility. Unfortunately we as a species are too week to embrace anarchy.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
OK, I want to end this thread because it is pretty much two people going back and forth..

Anarchism in the way your talking is Communism, which is a great form of government but impossible to form.

Anarchism IS communism, every one is equal and their are no differences, I admit I would love to live in a society where it appeared as a utopian society but I honestly feel it is impossible, because like Magic said everyone would have to spontaniously believe in anarchism and put aside all differences. Believe what you want, but I really think that Anarchist have this view that because they feel government is opressive to the minority, which in few cases do the minority actually rule, that all government is bad. Even if the governments of the world do injust actions like say they impliment 9/11, does not mean they do not act for the benifit of the majority.

Anarchy is impossible because of the way humans act, and because there are way to many humans. I repsect your views, I personally believe we both deserve an applause for presenting and defending our views to the end but this argument, between the two of us anyways, will go no where.

Right, it would have been more interesting if we had more participants. Yeah, there is no way we are going to convince each other. We are just going to believe what we will.

I feel that the minority always rules. It's called "representation" in our system. Government just inherently places power in the hands of the few over the many. That's why state socialism is a fraud. The ruling minority provides for the majority on a minimal level to keep us content and unquestioning of their power.

Yes, great debate. But I agree that we have pretty much exhausted our main points, and that it is meaningless and unproductive at this point to continue.

Originally posted by intrepid
Anarchy is like Communism and Socialism. Great in theory, piss poor in practice. It places too much onus on the individual. If every individual took ownership in his/her place in the world, all 3 of these types of government would be utopian. That's not about to happen though. People think "anarchy" is about doing what you want, it isn't. It's about responsibility. Unfortunately we as a species are too week to embrace anarchy.

Too much onus for the dumbed-down modern individual, maybe, but this damage was done by hierarchy IMO. If we removed hierachy, the individual would become fully capable of autonomy again. People are misinformed about anarchy because the state propagates myths about it that serve their interests, because of course the state wants people to think its existence is a necessity, otherwise the population would have revolted long ago. I believe that only our modern global society is too weak to embrace it (due to the masses being 'dumbed-down', etc.), and that this is not inherent to us. I believe we can develop and regain our sense of responsibility, cooperation and autonomy again.

Let me try to explain how I think Anarchy could work, and why I think it would work perfectly.

Imagine a road. As all the roads you know, it has pedestrians, young and old, bikers, skaters, cars, trucks, all going from south to north and from north to south, and when it comes to cross another street that goes from west to east, you get traffic signs and traffic lights. It is said these measures are taken to increase security for everyone, right? And you, as a law-obedient citizen, think it is a good idea to install traffic lights, right?

That's why it's okay to sanction everyone who crosses a red traffic light or exceeds a speed limit with a fine.

Imagine all the traffic lights and signs were gone. Impossible, you say? Chaos, anarchy, fatal accidents, death, blood and destruction?

Drachten, a lovely frisian (sp?) town in the Netherlands. Traffic used to get stuck in the roads, things went slow, people were angry. Now, anarchy "rules". Engineer Hans Mondermann removed all the traffic lights and signs, installed fountains and playgrounds (!) in the middle of the streets and lo! what happened:

according to my latest source, not a single accident has occured since. Mondermann started the experiment in the 1970's.

Why is that? Roads gone wild

I declare the concept of Anarchy, at least if it means the abolition of interdictions, proven. All those laws that we have set up to protect ourselves in the name of justice, peace and security just made our conscience go lazy. If we obeyed a few basic laws, we'd have a strong conscience and wouldn't need thousands of laws.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Akareyon]

A Very Big "If"

Originally posted by Akareyon
If we obeyed a few basic laws, we'd have a strong conscience and wouldn't need thousands of laws.

And if some of us choose not to, what then?

DAMN, you're right, I didn't think of that.

Thank god that we have all those thousands of laws in place that everybody complies with.

Originally posted by the_individualist
human nature is defined by the culture the individual is raised in.

In consider the nature vs nurture debate to be ongoing even if i have picked sides long ago.

Change the culture, change "human nature". In our capitalist system, we have learned to exploit others for gain, so many would do this had they the chance, but it is possible to hardwire the individual differently- teaching him to cooperate with fellow man instead of see him as the means to an end.

The human norm is in fact overwhelming based on cooperation ( even blood sucking bats share if they had a good night and some other bat asks for some; they apparently understand that they might have a bad night and it helps to have 'friends') and anyone who wants to argue differently is going to have to make some very very impressive arguments!

Of course there is always going to be the rare sociopathic individual who will exploit no matter what,

If the system does not protect those people , as it does now, they just do not survive the norms so if mutual exploitation becomes the norm we know the system is sick and have nothing to do with what people want.

but these people don't care if there is a system of law or not anyways, and are going to act on their desires under any circumstance.

I would argue that these people in fact rely on the system more than anyone else as the only way they can protect themselves is by creating a legal framework ( and somehow convince others to accept it; no one said they were stupid) to protect themselves from the justice that they so badly deserve.

Stellar

Lynch Pen

Originally posted by StellarX
I would argue that these people in fact rely on the system more than anyone else as the only way they can protect themselves is by creating a legal framework ( and somehow convince others to accept it; no one said they were stupid) to protect themselves from the justice that they so badly deserve.

But again, the question that never gets a credible answer from Anarchy: who administers the justice?

That's the fallacy of Anarchic theory: its dependence on what amounts to government without government.

Been there, done that, no thanks. :shk:

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anarchy as a political paradigm cannot exist. Human beings rule the earth; and human beings are the meanest food chain known to life on earth.

The known history of humanity is in fact a case study of anarchy as it's a study of tribal existence. Anarchy is not having a problem with organization and authority but moving away from such systems that does not serve your interest.

Anarchy might reign for a while, but ultimately, the dude with the biggest club comes along and chases anarchy away - for his purposes.

Well why can the leader of the tribe not physically be the strongest as well as the smartest? Why is the assumption made that the guy with the biggest club and meanest attitude is not in fact socially the most astute as well ? People will follow a tribal type leader as long as he acts in their general interest ( or does not significantly affect their interest in any negative way) as everyone stands to gain. If push comes to shove the leaders tent or cave is the third one on the right 30 meters from yours so he can not for long survive acting against the common interest. Justice being close at hand keeps even the meanest brute honest.

There must always be some sort of rule. Rule by the strongest.

Rule by the strongest is not a problem at all as long as he does not have a army numbering tens of thousand protecting his person against those who he oppresses. Tyranny does not come into being because people like being part of systems that oppress them but because others failed to resist oppression or gained too much being part of it.

Stellar

Originally posted by Majic
But again, the question that never gets a credible answer from Anarchy: who administers the justice?

The people administer the justice? Do you not trust your fellow man and if so why have your interest become so separated from the norms and or expectations of others?

That's the fallacy of Anarchic theory: its dependence on what amounts to government without government.

Not at all! Why must the assumption always be made that administration of the common interest leads to control of the common interest? Is it based on the assumption that those who administer have more power due to the knowledge they gain by administrating the common good and if so how true is that these days when knowledge can be so easily distributed by electronic means? Why does our schooling systems have to focus on teaching such nonsense to discourage the true pursuit of knowledge? My study of this area indicates to me that massive forces are focused at preventing truly self interested action by robbing us of a true understanding , trough the study of actual history and scientific realities, of the foundations from which such action would stem.

Been there, done that, no thanks.

:shk:

These forms of abuses can only take place when there is a power so overwhelmingly in control that it can suppress the just action of the oppressed. I am sorry but your 'proof' indicates what sort of central control and government is required for injustice to truly flourish.

Stellar

Originally posted by optimus fett
just joking....anarchy can never work, there has to be some form of law and control, its just human nature to kick off and take.

Is not government rule by 'the people' for 'the people'? Why should we have a problem with rulers who share out interest and is our problem not rulers who have no interest in our interest as theirs are apparently completely different? Why do we need law and control if it's mostly to protect us from the criminality of the government or the results of the system it seeks to impose on us?

It is most certainly NOT human nature to steal as stealing from the guy in the tent next to yours might very well lead to retribution and that was the norm under which we evolved our social consciousness. Stealing is something the strong do to the weak and that's why white colour criminals don't often go to jail while common criminals ( who are willing to act in their own interest while trying to bend the system who does not otherwise work for them) mostly end up there as it's a pretty good indication to the true rulers of the world that said persons do not understand the their place in the grand scheme of things.

well, thats what i think.

And now you know what i think.

Stellar

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Exactly, for example, take away the laws and the governments and all people are free.

Not at all as people have been conditioned for centuries to think in certain ways and there has been real changes in how some look at the world. If government disappeared entirely from one day to the next it would be problematic to say the least as the institutions it's created have changed the world in many dangerous ways.

Immediatly everyone fights for survival, the weak group together and rally behind their strongest man.

How would they know who the strongest is and how much would there be to fight over after the food runs out in mere days? What would people fight with considering the brick houses? Considering the ways and means the average man has to defend himself why would he need a strong guy who dies as easily as the next guy to a 9mm shell? The times of the physically strong is long over ( if that was ever enough which i don't really believe anyways) and these days every man can be his own king had he only realised the possibility independent of the propaganda that convinced him he can be one under the current paradigm.

Bam, there you go anarchy over. Now the leader of the weak fight the individual stronger guys, they in turn group and it all goes back to normal.

The strong rarely have to fight the weak in such open ways and the weak are always ready to make deals for just a small cut of the pie; one only has to look at history to see what people will accept if they are left with some peace.

Human nature says we as social beings will create social structures to help us cope with daily life.

It is not to help us cope but because we are simply social creatures that need to be part of a group to function at all; it's not in my opinion a question of self interest but one of simple necessity!

Where is anarchy though? The entire world is anarchy, who governs the governments? Who is the one surpream leader of the world?

I would place my money on that 'group' that is worth around 300 trillion USD but that's just me.

There are 192 countries in the world, 192 factions,

Do you really think each country has only one 'tribe' or social grouping with one political or religious conviction?

192 completely different cultures with sub cultures with sub catagories in themselves.

So why propose that the 192 is somehow relevant?

192 different heads of state, monarchs, dictators, prime ministers, presidents

Why do they tend to do the same or try bring about the same changes in their various countries if they are so different?

and even one god representation on earth, the Holy See

I think the five major religions have something like five to ten thousand denominations and or sects so it's pretty obvious that the original human condition is rather tribal so what unnatural force is moving us all towards 'unity' and a one world government? It's certainly not what the people wants so why on Earth can it be observed to be happening?

192 armies. 192 forms of government.

Actually there is very little differnce when it comes to the form of government and they are getting less diverse every day of the year.

192 opinions with thousands of sub opinions within each opinion.

Six billion people and without some central agency propagandizing them i think you would have as many opinions....

Who governs the 192 states that represent the people they govern?

Few governments actually represent the people they profess to as is obvious by their actions. How does something like that happen?

No one, there for the world is anarchy on the global scale. Anarchy on a national level would be like on the world level, factions, that in turn ends anarchy and forms a new sub culture within the world, so we might have 219 countries in the world? Get my point?

If people were left alone that is what would happen but by studying history it's abundantly clear that it's not what history shows us.. Why is anarchy and self interested social activist groupings all over the world under attack? In my opinion it's not that anarchy does not work but that it's not allowed to work and it wont unless it's serving a specific interest of the true rulers of the world.

Stellar

The Puzzling Need For Centralized Control Of Mob Justice

Originally posted by StellarX
These forms of abuses can only take place when there is a power so overwhelmingly in control that it can suppress the just action of the oppressed. I am sorry but your 'proof' indicates what sort of central control and government is required for injustice to truly flourish.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that lynchings cannot occur without central control and government?