Anarchy

[BakerMan]

Okay, this is supposed to be a thread for debate about Anarchy, and if any of it's forms are plausible.

Here are a few sites that might explain a little about Anarchy if you don't know much on the subject.

YouTube - Brainwashed Two: What Is Anarchy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Cbh9-Lgts)

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)

Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)

You can find more information and real-life examples in the references section of wikipedia.

I have researched a little on anarchy and I'm not completely sure if it's possible. I'm still pretty much sitting on the fence, but I'm definitely leaning on the not possible side. Here are my doubts on it;

1.) If there was no law or justice system then gangs would roam freely and who would stop anyone who refused to take part in a peaceful anarchy

2.) How would people buy, sell, and gain jobs. How could the economy run if no jobs are put in place.

3.) If there is no government how is knowledge passed on to the younger generations. Also if there are no taxes then how is everything maintained, the only possibility I see is by the people, but if there is no economy then where would they get supplies.

4.) What stops the whole system from looping back into a government again? The moment people begin to feel uneasy they will yearn for a goverment to protect them and ensure their safety and prosperity. Not to mention make life easier.

The only way I see Anarchy working is if morals control the people rather than laws.

[Momiji]

Anarchy would eventually become 'survival of the fittest'- that is, whoever is the most powerful/rich would eventually become the leaders, and everyone who is weaker/poorer would become the followers of the rich and powerful, therefore, Anarchy would eventually become government. Anarchy, in any form, is ineffective.

[Mirage]

Funny, Poetically Pathetic, that's the exact same conclusion I've come to as well. Because humans are social animals, we will always recognize certain individuals as leaders. The only difference is that we to begin with will operate in smaller units than we do today, but eventually I think those many small units will merge and become similar to governments.

Individual humans are not very strong. It is through cooperation we have become the dominant species on this planet, in order to continue like that, we will need to continue working together as a larger unit. I don't think anarchism has anything to offer that's better than we already have.

[Pheesh]

I don't think it can really work because to form total chaos within a society would still bring abuot certain levels of structure. Like it was said above, the strong would eventually lead and the weak would follow. But on smaller scales I can see it happening. I mean, if you have a number of countries fighting over land you could say that land is in a state of anarchy...it's just that the individual is replaced with pockets of groups.

Same thing with communism. It is an unachievable form of government because human's are naturally greedy.

[Anaisa]

Anarchy doesn't have to be permanent. Anarchy can exist to change the current system, an then evolve into something else. I approve of anarchy an overthrowing the current order because it's a corrupt mess. But certain rules need to exist, so to me anarchy is what would take place to overthrow the current order. An once that was acheived, autonomy should be next on the agenda.
1.) If there was no law or justice system then gangs would roam freely and who would stop anyone who refused to take part in a peaceful anarchyAs I've said, anarchy can just be a starting point. Most people who approve of anarchy see it as a starting point to getting something acheived, it's not something permanent. Once the old system is destroyed, it's time to make a new system, not remain in a state of permanent anarchy.


2.) How would people buy, sell, and gain jobs. How could the economy run if no jobs are put in place.Who would want a system that doesn't work? For outright anarchy you need a lot of people commited to the cause, an most people don't want their world in shambles. People who work in government are not highly intelligent human beings who are the only people on Earth who know how to create a system that works. Their system doesn't work proficiently anyway. Humans are capable of governing themselves, because they usually want to make their living as comfortable as possible. As I've said, anarchy should be used as a starting point. Once the old system is gone, their is no need for anarchy. A new, better, fairer system can be created, based on what most people want. Not what a small group of corrupt upper class cretins want.

[Madame Adequate]

Well, I'm one of not-terribly-many anarchists who is actually a rebel, because I am the much-maligned anarcho-capitalist. This is being idealistic. I'm pessimistic and the prospects of anarchy being implemented, and I'm pessimistic about the consequences of it. It would be exploited and people would then, as you say, go right back to putting in a government of some sort.

Still, a belief that it can't work doesn't make it something I can't believe in. Interesting comparison I read: We believe crime shouldn't happen. We've no chance of stopping it in the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean we think the police force is a waste of time and money, or that we don't bother trying to stop crime. We simply do what we can, even if it is ultimately imcomplete. Therefore any move towards anarcho-capitalism would be good, even if the end result is unattainable.

In practise, I expect some form of anarchy to exists in the future. Ideally, we'd look like The Culture from Banks' novels. More practically, if we get the technology together I expect a lot of people will live in various virtual worlds, or will take off into space, and enforcing laws throughout the entire span of Human habitation will prove quite impossible.

[Cool Revolutionary]

Anarchy doesn't have to be permanent. Anarchy can exist to change the current system, an then evolve into something else. I approve of anarchy an overthrowing the current order because it's a corrupt mess. But certain rules need to exist, so to me anarchy is what would take place to overthrow the current order. An once that was acheived, autonomy should be next on the agenda.
1.) If there was no law or justice system then gangs would roam freely and who would stop anyone who refused to take part in a peaceful anarchyAs I've said, anarchy can just be a starting point. Most people who approve of anarchy see it as a starting point to getting something acheived, it's not something permanent. Once the old system is destroyed, it's time to make a new system, not remain in a state of permanent anarchy.


2.) How would people buy, sell, and gain jobs. How could the economy run if no jobs are put in place.Who would want a system that doesn't work? For outright anarchy you need a lot of people commited to the cause, an most people don't want their world in shambles. People who work in government are not highly intelligent human beings who are the only people on Earth who know how to create a system that works. Their system doesn't work proficiently anyway. Humans are capable of governing themselves, because they usually want to make their living as comfortable as possible. As I've said, anarchy should be used as a starting point. Once the old system is gone, their is no need for anarchy. A new, better, fairer system can be created, based on what most people want. Not what a small group of corrupt upper class cretins want.
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT! i dont need to share my opinion now. she's just
said everything i wouldve posted anyway.;)

[escobert]

Anarchy would eventually become 'survival of the fittest'- that is, whoever is the most powerful/rich would eventually become the leaders, and everyone who is weaker/poorer would become the followers of the rich and powerful, therefore, Anarchy would eventually become government. Anarchy, in any form, is ineffective.

pretty much.
It can work for small amount of time, not something I'd like but yes it could work. Then it would fail.

[Bolivar]

I absolutely believe in anarchy. Although to define oneself as an anarchist (in america) is a little futile because the ruling body has too many followers, money and guns to achieve it in our lifetimes.


Funny, Poetically Pathetic, that's the exact same conclusion I've come to as well. Because humans are social animals, we will always recognize certain individuals as leaders.
Individual humans are not very strong. It is through cooperation we have become the dominant species on this planet, in order to continue like that, we will need to continue working together as a larger unit. I don't think anarchism has anything to offer that's better than we already have.

I bolded 4 of your statements because they serve as the cliche, non-thinking response to any radical idea. Those are useless, and ill-based generalizations. How do you know those things? Who have you heard say them and why do you belive them? What about their scientific method makes you believe that they know what they're talking about? When saying things like that, it's better to say "i think"/"it seems" because in reality, there is no way for you to know it.

Which brings me to my next point - for all of you who think it's impossible, i have bad news for you, we live in a state of anarchy every day of our lives. The international political scene is an anarchic state, in that there is no central body that makes or upholds law for the individual actors. To say the United Nations is that body is to reveal how little you've studied international politics. The closest thing is the levels of influence among the actors, such as when the United States wants to get something done, it suggests it, some countries follow and others don't, but there is usually no penalty for not doing so. This illustrates how an anarchy state (oxymoron?) would operate.

My main point is that we are all anarchists. If you don't believe in getting to that point where we don't need some of the things that complicate our social lives, what are you doing in a society? The whole idea of our cooperate culture should be to continually elevate the society and maximize the standard of living for its participants. To me, anarchy is that final stage, when we've finally accomplished everything we set out to do and many functions of government are no longer necessary.

However, I will say that I think some form of law upholding agency is necessary, because you're always going to get things like a wife cheating on her husband so he kills her, things like that. So IMO a minimal police presence is necessary.

[Polaris]

Is Anarchy possible? Yes
Will it happen? No

[Mirage]

I absolutely believe in anarchy. Although to define oneself as an anarchist (in america) is a little futile because the ruling body has too many followers, money and guns to achieve it in our lifetimes.


Funny, Poetically Pathetic, that's the exact same conclusion I've come to as well. Because humans are social animals, we will always recognize certain individuals as leaders.
Individual humans are not very strong. It is through cooperation we have become the dominant species on this planet, in order to continue like that, we will need to continue working together as a larger unit. I don't think anarchism has anything to offer that's better than we already have.

I bolded 4 of your statements because they serve as the cliche, non-thinking response to any radical idea. Those are useless, and ill-based generalizations. How do you know those things? Who have you heard say them and why do you belive them? What about their scientific method makes you believe that they know what they're talking about? When saying things like that, it's better to say "i think"/"it seems" because in reality, there is no way for you to know it.

You're probably right it's better to say "I think". However, I didn't actually hear this from anyone (not to begin with, anyway. I've found other who agree later). It's more my own observations that have lead me to those conclusions. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, as there is to almost everything else in this world too.

Anyway, it seems you are arguing that absolutely everything is an anarchy already, and we're only arguing about where to draw some arbitrary line. Maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of anarchism?

I have been considering anarchy to be the complete lack of any governing body, no matter how big this body is, and that's what I think isn't possible, because no matter how small, I think there will be units that resemble what our government is today, (and that would break with absolute anarchy). I'm not against a lot of personal and economical freedom (in fact, I am leaning far more towards anarchism than towards authoritarianism), but I don't think it should (or can) be taken to the extreme.

As for the "humans are weak as an individual" statement, I think it's pretty correct. An important reason as to why we were enabled to create advanced tools that would make us superior to the other species on this planet is that we worked as a collective unit, where some individuals could specialize themselves in certain trades, while others would specialize in other trades. As we specialized in different trades, we basically just got more spare time on our hands, and were therefore enabled to spend much more time developing things that weren't bare requirements for our survival.

[Shlup]

Anarchy is plausible maybe if there are like five people living on a small island in luxury. And it would last for that generation, and then the next generation would start killing each other in order to gain leadership.

[BakerMan]

When I meant could Anarchy work, I meant as in a permanent thing. Anyways, after thinking over it more I realize how impossible permanent Anarchy is.

[Shoeberto]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT I LOVE IT

[Rengori]

It could happen, but like every form of government it'll either never happen or die off later in the 'nation's' life.

[Chemical]

Although it's true that the Government controls much of our lives I still notice that it does not exert and absolute control and despite the fact that there is a governing body there is an increasing amount of incidents that demonstrate how much power the Governing body lacks in controlling the population.

Murder, theft, under age drinking, prostitution, child abuse, terrorism, PETA burning buildings down, drug smuggling...


really we're all anarchic at our core base - we're just mildly united under the pretension that a greater force exists; perhaps most of all the government serves as a security blanket... but blankets are penetrable and cane be pierced or taken away.

Ultimately, even with a government in place, it's always up to an individual to be responsible for their own actions...

[Peegee]

I don't feel like reading / listening through three external links, considering not many people are doing it either. All I will say is that Anarchy makes no sense on a mass scale, and most people who are Anarchists just (seem to me, anyway) don't like the social contract theory of giving up their freedom for some degree of safety. Naturally there are other kinds of anarchists too.

A story about Canada:

A town / small city in Quebec once had their entire police force go on strike. The strike started early in the morning.

- By 11am 2 banks were robbed
- By noonish there was massive looting
- By the end of the day the national guard had to be dispatched

Something like that. If you define Anarchy as the absence of controlling agent like the police, people will form groups (because as stated, humans by themselves are pretty weak) and the strongest groups will rule.

If that's your idea of a 'functioning society', all the power to you. I don't like anarchy.

[Old Manus]

It's what you want when you listen to too much RATM and Nine Inch Nails.

[Bolivar]

I absolutely believe in anarchy. Although to define oneself as an anarchist (in america) is a little futile because the ruling body has too many followers, money and guns to achieve it in our lifetimes.


Funny, Poetically Pathetic, that's the exact same conclusion I've come to as well. Because humans are social animals, we will always recognize certain individuals as leaders.
Individual humans are not very strong. It is through cooperation we have become the dominant species on this planet, in order to continue like that, we will need to continue working together as a larger unit. I don't think anarchism has anything to offer that's better than we already have.

I bolded 4 of your statements because they serve as the cliche, non-thinking response to any radical idea. Those are useless, and ill-based generalizations. How do you know those things? Who have you heard say them and why do you belive them? What about their scientific method makes you believe that they know what they're talking about? When saying things like that, it's better to say "i think"/"it seems" because in reality, there is no way for you to know it.

You're probably right it's better to say "I think". However, I didn't actually hear this from anyone (not to begin with, anyway. I've found other who agree later). It's more my own observations that have lead me to those conclusions. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this, as there is to almost everything else in this world too.

Anyway, it seems you are arguing that absolutely everything is an anarchy already, and we're only arguing about where to draw some arbitrary line. Maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of anarchism?

I have been considering anarchy to be the complete lack of any governing body, no matter how big this body is, and that's what I think isn't possible, because no matter how small, I think there will be units that resemble what our government is today, (and that would break with absolute anarchy). I'm not against a lot of personal and economical freedom (in fact, I am leaning far more towards anarchism than towards authoritarianism), but I don't think it should (or can) be taken to the extreme.

As for the "humans are weak as an individual" statement, I think it's pretty correct. An important reason as to why we were enabled to create advanced tools that would make us superior to the other species on this planet is that we worked as a collective unit, where some individuals could specialize themselves in certain trades, while others would specialize in other trades. As we specialized in different trades, we basically just got more spare time on our hands, and were therefore enabled to spend much more time developing things that weren't bare requirements for our survival.

that's fine that you have your observations (i've noticed and believe in some of those too).

and no, actually i'm not arguing that absolutely everything is an anarchic state (?), I was only using the international political scene as an example of real-life system of anarchy, and one that (for the most part, for us anyway) works.

Your definition of anarchy is right, it's the connotation that's been slanted over the years. When most people talk about it, it's in a derogatory way to equate "Chaos" or disorder. In reality, anarchy is simply the freedom to do whatever you want without the obligations to some higher society.

Also, I said that complete and total anarchy, although it may be possible, probably isn't the best idea, because you'll always need something resembling a police force in order to protect people against the psychos.

[bipper]

No uniform government will EVER be possible, as different things, motivate different people. For some, communism is the answer, to others the greed of capitalism is the supreme motivator. Others like to live in vans by rivers living off a steady diet of American cheese (socialism),

It is all in the person.

People come in all different shapes, sizes, and flavors (ask Nominus)

[Araciel]

anarchy is impossible.

the end.

[Yamaneko]

No government is only possible if there are enough resources for everyone and no one ever needed to have contact with one another. Commerce and trade facilitate the need for governance and since biologically speaking humans are not adept to living alone, there will always be bands of us roaming together, controlled by one person or a group of people. Realistically, Anarchy is not an end, but a method for instituting change. The lack of a system is a system itself.

[Madame Adequate]

I don't feel like reading / listening through three external links, considering not many people are doing it either. All I will say is that Anarchy makes no sense on a mass scale, and most people who are Anarchists just (seem to me, anyway) don't like the social contract theory of giving up their freedom for some degree of safety. Naturally there are other kinds of anarchists too.

Well, I'd say that's probably part of it. Anarchism takes to the extreme Franklin's statement "those who would give up a little freedom for a little security will deserve neither, and lose both". That's certainly part of the appeal to me. A government can never abuse powers or impose unwarranted laws on people if the government doesn't exist.


No government is only possible if there are enough resources for everyone and no one ever needed to have contact with one another.

That = my idea of heaven. So I suppose you might say I'm a practical anarchist. Anticipating the day then the above criteria might be fulfilled (Not an inevitability, but a possibility at the least) I'm interested in seeing that currently-necessary government does not continue once it is rendered needless.