Anarchy? Really?

[nick n stuff]

anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

Except, y'know... these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Edit: no-one rational or sane wants it

 

[Rubashov]

anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

Except, y'know... these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Edit: no-one rational or sane wants it

The Spanish anarchist militias played a key role in the early stages of struggle against Fascism (it can be argued whether Franco himself was truly a Fascist, but he certainly received a large amount of aid from them). Meanwhile, the Western governments were twiddling their thumbs and Hitler's army was marching into the Rhineland.

 

[Opacic]

Anarchy is not chaos, that's quite a common misunderstanding.

Anarchy is just the lack of social hierarchy.

Honestly the more vocal proponents are just disillusioned teenagers who want to break stuff.

anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

Except, y'know... these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Edit: no-one rational or sane wants it

The Spanish anarchist militias played a key role in the early stages of struggle against Fascism (it can be argued whether Franco himself was truly a Fascist, but he certainly received a large amount of aid from them). Meanwhile, the Western governments were twiddling their thumbs and Hitler's army was marching into the Rhineland.

The whole world had just gone through the largest financial crisis in modern history, they could hardly afford to keep trains running let alone fighting Fascism that they didn't perceive as a threat as of yet.

Meanwhile, the Western governments were twiddling their thumbs and Hitler's army was marching into the Rhineland.

Yes, all western governments are eeeevil. Fight the power, bro.

 

[Chogg Van Helsing]

No, humans are chaos and they bring chaos to the world. They attempt to create order from it and commonly fail.

agreed. but im probably the most anti human being since, ..., well anything lol

An anti-human human? More likely than you think!

I've personally got quite the dark view on humanity, but that's neither here nor there.

lol humanity does suck. but ur right. not place or time...

 

[Rubashov]

Anarchy is not chaos, that's quite a common misunderstanding.

Anarchy is just the lack of social hierarchy.

Honestly the more vocal proponents are just disillusioned teenagers who want to break stuff.

anarchy is just extreme disobedience which seems really cool but in reality no-one wants it...not even John Lydon.

Except, y'know... these folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

Edit: no-one rational or sane wants it

The Spanish anarchist militias played a key role in the early stages of struggle against Fascism (it can be argued whether Franco himself was truly a Fascist, but he certainly received a large amount of aid from them). Meanwhile, the Western governments were twiddling their thumbs and Hitler's army was marching into the Rhineland.

The whole world had just gone through the largest financial crisis in modern history, they could hardly afford to keep trains running let alone fighting Fascism that they didn't perceive as a threat as of yet.

I'm not blaming the Western governments for failing to oppose Fascism. I just find the notion that the first people to put their lives on the line to do so were irrational or insane somewhat objectionable.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

 

[Hiikuro]

I think there is a problem of definition between the words chaos and destruction used in this thread.

Chaos isn't necessarily equivalent with destruction. To me it seems like destruction is proportional to the level of human organization. And I'll make my example by looking at military, the arguably highest form of human organization and totalitarianism (and organization seems to be defined equivalent to order in this thread). They've likely caused more economic and social destruction than any cumulative unorganized destruction (which is a very vague definition I admit). And military is often or always targeted at specific organizational groups (other governments, ethnic groups). Now, my neutral question is then: Would lack of government or organization (chaos) cause equivalent or higher destruction?

I'm oversimplifying here, and would want more explored arguments or counterarguments to my previous statements.

I defined myself as an anarchist many years ago. Today I don't have such a clear definition. I want a society which isn't defined with countries, nations, or other such human associations. However, what the alternative is I'm not so sure, but I think making the bureaucracy smaller or more fragmented would help. Without borders and groups, there would be no-one for organizations to target (you can't have ethnic cleansing of an ethnicity that isn't defined). I don't deny that governments can do a lot of good, but they've got too much power over too many people, resulting in giving us the lowest common denominator. I need the freedom do to what I want, and not be forced to do what I don't want. I wouldn't need freedom to damage humanity, as I do not ever in any way want to do that. I would need my freedom to help humanity. This is why I'm leaning in this direction.

 

[Nmil-ek]

It's a political stance for thugs, retards, people wanting to look dark and edgy or attention whores. Yes I'm generalising, yes I have a preconception, yes it's a justified one.

 

[Rubashov]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

Anarchy is about the absence of rulers, not rules. As such, many anarchists advocate some sort of direct democracy.

 

[GrinningManiac]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

Anarchy is about the absence of rulers, not rules. As such, many anarchists advocate some sort of direct democracy.

That form of Anarchy is admirable, but utterly impractical and idealistic

If you yourself are one such Anarchist, could you explain to me how such a thing would be possible in, say, Britain or America?

 

[Grey_Focks]

It's a political stance for thugs, retards, people wanting to look dark and edgy or attention whores. Yes I'm generalising, yes I have a preconception, yes it's a justified one.

Eh, I could make a big long post, but I see little point when I can just quote this. I have yet to meet an anarchist who does not fall into atleast two of those categories.

 

[Rubashov]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

Anarchy is about the absence of rulers, not rules. As such, many anarchists advocate some sort of direct democracy.

That form of Anarchy is admirable, but utterly impractical and idealistic

If you yourself are one such Anarchist, could you explain to me how such a thing would be possible in, say, Britain or America?

Organizationally, an anarchist region/nation/country/whatever would be a federation of smaller regions, which would be federations of still-smaller regions, which would be federations of localities, which would themselves be federations of individuals. Localities would be run in a directly-democratic fashion; laws and policies would be set by a direct vote. However, since a completely direct democracy would likely be impractical on a larger scale, localities would elect delegates to send to the regional congress to formulate regional policies and laws. This would entail a certain degree of decision-making authority on the part of these delegates; however, it would be derived entirely from the localities themselves, which, on top of being able to recall their delegates at any time, would have the option to set whatever additional limits on the delegates they deemed necessary (the most extreme of which would be, for example, requiring a vote to be taken on each issue the delegate voted on). A similar relationship would exist between each regional congress and the congress immediately above it, all the way up to the national level (or, ideally, the global level, although that's probably a long way off). To prevent tyranny by majority, the "social contract" or Constitution documenting the formation of each federation--at any level--would explicitly allow the federating bodies the right to secede from the federation should any of the congress's decisions prove too objectionable; however, in doing so, they would give up all the benefits that would come from being a part of such a federation (i.e., the federation would not send troops to aid them in the event of an invasion, they would not be guaranteed free trade or access to the other region's resources, etc.). The federations would be held together through mutually-recognized benefits, "the carrot" rather than "the stick"--which is why such an arrangement could be called "anarchist". Coercion would not enter into the equation.

Getting from here to there is another issue entirely, of course. However, the United States already has something of a federal system, although to a lesser degree, only between the states and the federal government (the states have more-or-less absolute power over the local governments), and without nearly the safeguards necessary to ensure that the representatives are accountable to the people or to guarantee the rights of minorities. I'm not sure if there is a similar relationship between the various nations in the United Kingdom and the central government...?

 

[Squarez]

If you haven't noticed, Governments tend towards totalitarianism.

Really? You're saying that there's no middle ground? It's only a choice between a fascist police state and complete anarchy? Now children, you and I know that's total bullshit.

Yeah, until you remember he hails from the UK. Or at least is marked so in his profile.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

The UK has become the posterboy across the world for government run amok. Listen to the Judas Priest song, Electric Eye, and you will know all you need to about the situation.

So you know all you need to know about my country and its political system from one song by a metal band?

I suggest you either a) Stop being an idiot or b) Stop making shit up about a place you have no idea about, unless of course, you actually live here, in which case I refer you to point "a".

OT: Anarchism is totally bullshit. I remember reading the lyrics to some song that claimed something along the lyrics of "You're a fool if you need the law to protect you" and that if he was ever killed or something, then it'd be fair do's because he was too much of a fool to something about it.

BULL-SHIT!

So this band is claiming that anarchy is the best and having no laws would benefit everyone more than the current system. If you were wronged, it's all your fault for being raped/abused/murdered/stolen from/kidnapped ect. It boggles the mind how some people can be so stupid.

 

[Squarez]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

Anarchy is about the absence of rulers, not rules. As such, many anarchists advocate some sort of direct democracy.

That form of Anarchy is admirable, but utterly impractical and idealistic

If you yourself are one such Anarchist, could you explain to me how such a thing would be possible in, say, Britain or America?

Organizationally, an anarchist region/nation/country/whatever would be a federation of smaller regions, which would be federations of still-smaller regions, which would be federations of localities, which would themselves be federations of individuals. Localities would be run in a directly-democratic fashion; laws and policies would be set by a direct vote. However, since a completely direct democracy would likely be impractical on a larger scale, localities would elect delegates to send to the regional congress to formulate regional policies and laws. This would entail a certain degree of decision-making authority on the part of these delegates; however, it would be derived entirely from the localities themselves, which, on top of being able to recall their delegates at any time, would have the option to set whatever additional limits on the delegates they deemed necessary (the most extreme of which would be, for example, requiring a vote to be taken on each issue the delegate voted on). A similar relationship would exist between each regional congress and the congress immediately above it, all the way up to the national level (or, ideally, the global level, although that's probably a long way off). To prevent tyranny by majority, the "social contract" or Constitution documenting the formation of each federation--at any level--would explicitly allow the federating bodies the right to secede from the federation should any of the congress's decisions prove too objectionable; however, in doing so, they would give up all the benefits that would come from being a part of such a federation (i.e., the federation would not send troops to aid them in the event of an invasion, they would not be guaranteed free trade or access to the other region's resources, etc.). The federations would be held together through mutually-recognized benefits, "the carrot" rather than "the stick"--which is why such an arrangement could be called "anarchist". Coercion would not enter into the equation.

Getting from here to there is another issue entirely, of course. However, the United States already has something of a federal system, although to a lesser degree, only between the states and the federal government (the states have more-or-less absolute power over the local governments), and without nearly the safeguards necessary to ensure that the representatives are accountable to the people or to guarantee the rights of minorities. I'm not sure if there is a similar relationship between the various nations in the United Kingdom and the central government...?

So basically what you described is just a government, in a coalition with other governments.

Exactly like the EU. Which we already have.

 

[Riobux]

Thoughts?

Like Communism, it's a wet dream of a total utopia. In terms of Anarchy, the problem is it's just not practical. It leads to gang warfare which, in turn, leads to another government rising up. Which then leads to a cycle of history where we repeat ourselves.

That is the best case scenario.

 

[Sir Prize]

Anarchy could work, in theory.
Rather than having massive cities and alike you have small and perhaps tribal like communties and within these communties the people make decsions and alike together. Each person would have a job and collectively they all help keep eveything going, there wouldn't be a need for a goverment or money.

Once again, this is in theory, in pratice in wouldn't work because of human nature and alike.

 

[Rubashov]

Anarchy doesn't work in principle

It seems to be based on two, seemingly opposed, forms of anarchy, both of which are easily destroyed

1. Everyone lives in a lawless society where things are decided based on common decency and common sense, rather than some rigid, constrictive law written in some ol' book.

Anarchy is formed around the idea that humans are inherently lawless. Therefore, a society where there are no laws would not be preseved because "people would behave", they would tear things apart for their own gain

2. No laws! Anything Goes! Want to rape children!? FINE WITH US!!!

not only is this idea fundamentally stupid, it's also quite silly, because that would mean that there's, say, no law in setting up a totalitarian government and abolishing Anarchy, because having a law against anti-anarchists is basically against the grain of anarchism

Anarchy is about the absence of rulers, not rules. As such, many anarchists advocate some sort of direct democracy.

That form of Anarchy is admirable, but utterly impractical and idealistic

If you yourself are one such Anarchist, could you explain to me how such a thing would be possible in, say, Britain or America?

Organizationally, an anarchist region/nation/country/whatever would be a federation of smaller regions, which would be federations of still-smaller regions, which would be federations of localities, which would themselves be federations of individuals. Localities would be run in a directly-democratic fashion; laws and policies would be set by a direct vote. However, since a completely direct democracy would likely be impractical on a larger scale, localities would elect delegates to send to the regional congress to formulate regional policies and laws. This would entail a certain degree of decision-making authority on the part of these delegates; however, it would be derived entirely from the localities themselves, which, on top of being able to recall their delegates at any time, would have the option to set whatever additional limits on the delegates they deemed necessary (the most extreme of which would be, for example, requiring a vote to be taken on each issue the delegate voted on). A similar relationship would exist between each regional congress and the congress immediately above it, all the way up to the national level (or, ideally, the global level, although that's probably a long way off). To prevent tyranny by majority, the "social contract" or Constitution documenting the formation of each federation--at any level--would explicitly allow the federating bodies the right to secede from the federation should any of the congress's decisions prove too objectionable; however, in doing so, they would give up all the benefits that would come from being a part of such a federation (i.e., the federation would not send troops to aid them in the event of an invasion, they would not be guaranteed free trade or access to the other region's resources, etc.). The federations would be held together through mutually-recognized benefits, "the carrot" rather than "the stick"--which is why such an arrangement could be called "anarchist". Coercion would not enter into the equation.

Getting from here to there is another issue entirely, of course. However, the United States already has something of a federal system, although to a lesser degree, only between the states and the federal government (the states have more-or-less absolute power over the local governments), and without nearly the safeguards necessary to ensure that the representatives are accountable to the people or to guarantee the rights of minorities. I'm not sure if there is a similar relationship between the various nations in the United Kingdom and the central government...?

So basically what you described is just a government, in a coalition with other governments.

Exactly like the EU. Which we already have.

States are held together by force. The EU, AFAIK, is not. So I suppose you could say it would be similar to the EU, except the relationship between countries in the EU would be the same as the relationship between individuals in the localities, between between localities in the regions, between regions in the countries, etc. There are probably some limitations on the EU that wouldn't apply here, though.

 

[Kagim]

I think there is a problem of definition between the words chaos and destruction used in this thread.

Chaos isn't necessarily equivalent with destruction. To me it seems like destruction is proportional to the level of human organization. And I'll make my example by looking at military, the arguably highest form of human organization and totalitarianism (and organization seems to be defined equivalent to order in this thread). They've likely caused more economic and social destruction than any cumulative unorganized destruction (which is a very vague definition I admit). And military is often or always targeted at specific organizational groups (other governments, ethnic groups). Now, my neutral question is then: Would lack of government or organization (chaos) cause equivalent or higher destruction?

I'm oversimplifying here, and would want more explored arguments or counterarguments to my previous statements.

I defined myself as an anarchist many years ago. Today I don't have such a clear definition. I want a society which isn't defined with countries, nations, or other such human associations. However, what the alternative is I'm not so sure, but I think making the bureaucracy smaller or more fragmented would help. Without borders and groups, there would be no-one for organizations to target (you can't have ethnic cleansing of an ethnicity that isn't defined). I don't deny that governments can do a lot of good, but they've got too much power over too many people, resulting in giving us the lowest common denominator. I need the freedom do to what I want, and not be forced to do what I don't want. I wouldn't need freedom to damage humanity, as I do not ever in any way want to do that. I would need my freedom to help humanity. This is why I'm leaning in this direction.

My one criticism is about your feelings towards current governments and there power or control.

One can say that governments have a lot of power, however who has the power is chosen by the people.

In Canada the last Federal election had a 49% voter turn out. The majority of which one can fairly say would be lobby groups and religious fundamentalists(I am not saying there is anything wrong with religion, but rather stating to account for religion having an effect on government decisions). So while the majority of Canada might hate this or that the government feels no reason to listen to them, because they are not going to vote anyway.

The people hold a lot of power, for if people were to actually act and vote and put together intelligent protests things can change.

What we have is half a country not even spending the ten minutes to punch a ballet. Refusing to go out and make some form of change and being content sitting at home doing nothing. If everyone came out and voted, even if they just picked a party at random, the power in the country would be disrupted largely, Forcing a minority government, and forcing governments to care more about what the people have to say.

As it stand governments only care about what lobbyists and religious groups say because they are the only people who vote.

Furthermore anyone can start a political party. If you put the time and effort into it you can run. Political parties cost lots of money, but that just means hard work. Nothing is stopping someone from forming a party and running in municipal elections until they can take enough control in a provincial election and move towards federal goals.

It would take a lot of hard work and time.

So no one bothers.

Anarchy seems like a quick fix to me, "just throw it all out!". Rather then people working hard, raising money, getting educated in your countries history of laws and past just say nuts to it and give up on all of it. I think that's a lazy way to go about things.

I'm not an anarchist but i agree.

I would LOVE a society of humans that lives and work together as an organized people. With the freedom to live and love and worship and be who they are in harmony with each other. Tight knit communities all working hard to support there town, making sure everyone is healthy and happy. I work towards that. I am polite to my neighbors. I say hi to them and smile. I stop and talk to them when i can despite how bad i am with others.

People will always move into groups though. Its natural, people love being in groups. It makes us feel strong. It makes feel wanted and included. That's why people form cliches and groups. Humans are very very social animals, groups feed us this desire.

As for your neutral question. No. Why? Because any destruction caused by lack of government would be committed by organized groups trying to become the new authority. The destruction will always be organized. In the true essence of the word no destruction is chaotic simply because chaos requires no one is thinking about there actions. There is no motive. Chaotic destruction would be things like hurricanes, earthquakes. Even then most of those things are not chaos but inevitabilities based on factors.

My point of course being that living creatures are naturally inclined to order. Because our needs and wants drive us towards goals. War, destruction, all consequences of our goals. Unless the damage you cause is for positively no reason, even the reason to create damage is still a reason to do so, and there for not chaotic, but rather thought out.

Anarchy would not create chaos. People would still die. A lot. At the hands of people who desire power.

If people somehow lost the desire for power then anarchy would work. Then again if people had no desire for power then people could have trusted organized governments that were corruption free.