Anarchy

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
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.

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)

anarchy is impossible.

the end.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yams

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.