Anarchy? Really?

[Andantil]

Anarchy would not lead to chaos, but a natural order of the strong over the weak, the fastest, strongest, smartest, and most skilled people would dominate while those not so capable would be crushed under their boot. We would be organized like animals, this environment would not be conducive to thought or creation, and we would not be able to take advantage of the traits which set humans apart from other animals.

Anarchy does not truly exist, but lack of a "morally correct" governing body would destroy life as we know it and return us to a prehistoric way of life.

 

[Falconus]

To all these people posting without even a basic understanding of anarchism and acting like they are an authority on the subject, read a damn book. Because you fail.

I'm all for the distribution of power, but I really can't see people operating effectively without some kind of governing body to provide basic necessities like roads and what not, which wouldn't be provided otherwise.

Well think of it like this. Who's more improtant in the construction of a road, the government or the engineers and road crews?. in the same way a company head isn't really important, all they really do is rent factories to the workers who produce the wealth.

 

[Hiikuro]

Text

I'll just add two things.

First, I am not against organization, I am against organization on a large scale, or organization with full power. I want more decentralized and independent power (well, actually, that kinda sounds like a war begging to happen, doesn't it? Never mind then). I really want just to have the option to go to a place where I'm more politically compatible, but in the modern age, that's hardly possible anymore is it? Almost all (western at least) governments are unpleasantly similar. I'd prefer variation and alternatives to "everyone think like me!"

Second, from how I've experienced.. well.. living. I've never really noticed any significant change to me, no matter what party is in charge. During the election, they blow up small changes into a big deal, but when the dust eventually settles, the "big deal" really only marginally affects everyone. I do not vote, and do not care about who runs this country (so feel free to blame me on that), mainly because I'll eventually move to another country. And depending on the political landscape in my new country, I may or may not vote there.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just curious if there exist a form of government that can make its people more content and happy than what we have today (which is seriously flawed in my opinion). People always say it is the "best we have", but I'd rather think further than that. But I wouldn't be surprised if a new governmental iteration is just a few decades away.

In any case, I've got bigger problems to worry about than who's in charge.

 

[Squarez]

Snip

Either way, it sounds totally pointless to overthrow a government and start a revolution and then set about a new system of things, which when all the dust has settled, chances are many people would have died; when the final result will be almost identical to what we have now.

 

[Rubashov]

Snip

Either way, it sounds totally pointless to overthrow a government and start a revolution and then set about a new system of things, which when all the dust has settled, chances are many people would have died; when the final result will be almost identical to what we have now.

How is it almost identical? From where I'm standing (metaphorically), it doesn't look at all similar. Germany, for example, is not a federation. The EU is a federation (I think...I'm not from Europe, so I'm not entirely certain how it works or how much say the citizens have in its operation), but it isn't a federation of federations of federations of federations. That's what I'm proposing. The difference is as great as the difference between a monarchy and a republic.

 

[Wayneguard]

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.

I suggest that you quit substituting insults for substance if you want to be taken seriously. The growth of the British totalitarian police state has been chronicled for years. Friedrich Hayek warned you all about it in the 40's and now Europe's (and the US's) chickens have come to roost, so to speak, with debt and deficit crushing the economies of both. The Judas Priest song is just a pop-culture reference that illustrates my point. Are you refusing to read between the lines of that post or are you just that dull?

 

[Kagim]

Text

I'll just add two things.

First, I am not against organization, I am against organization on a large scale, or organization with full power. I want more decentralized and independent power (well, actually, that kinda sounds like a war begging to happen, doesn't it? Never mind then). I really want just to have the option to go to a place where I'm more politically compatible, but in the modern age, that's hardly possible anymore is it? Almost all (western at least) governments are unpleasantly similar. I'd prefer variation and alternatives to "everyone think like me!"

Second, from how I've experienced.. well.. living. I've never really noticed any significant change to me, no matter what party is in charge. During the election, they blow up small changes into a big deal, but when the dust eventually settles, the "big deal" really only marginally affects everyone. I do not vote, and do not care about who runs this country (so feel free to blame me on that), mainly because I'll eventually move to another country. And depending on the political landscape in my new country, I may or may not vote there.

I don't disagree with you. I'm just curious if there exist a form of government that can make its people more content and happy than what we have today (which is seriously flawed in my opinion). People always say it is the "best we have", but I'd rather think further than that. But I wouldn't be surprised if a new governmental iteration is just a few decades away.

In any case, I've got bigger problems to worry about than who's in charge.

I understand what your saying and honestly agree with you on most, i just wanted to elaborate a bit more on the voting thing.

What a lot of people don't seem to know is that there are a number of fringe candidates. Green peace, communist party that sorta thing. The idea is if say, 90% of people voted and that extra 41%made green peace rise into 15-20% of the votes that would give them a stronger voice as well as sap power from the big three.

So instead of Conservatives with 60% of voters and the other two holding the other 35 with the fringes in the 5%.

Imagine Conservatives with 40% with the NDP and Liberals holding only 20% with fringe groups holding 40% on there own. This would force the conservatives into a minority government meaning even if every member of there party votes yes any idea they bring up can be voted down in parliament by the remaining 60% of parliament.

What we get is Either the conservatives are forced into a coalition government with the NDP and the liberals or they start listening to the voters. Since the latter is the effect we want I'll go into the former a bit more.

So what we would then have if a coalition would form is three parties, that are not honestly fond of each other, being forced to work together to keep the 40% fringe groups from growing.

The next election unless they honestly do something to make the Canadian people believe in them again no one will vote for there coalition and fringe groups will gain in power. Not only that but Fringe groups will be brought more into debates since a coalition can;t participate in a debate against itself. What we would see is fringe group gaining more power on there own once again sapping more power from the coalition, inevitably leading to the new coalition to having to listen to everyone, rather then the lobbyists.

Government as it now is flawed, and i do place a share of the blame on the non voters. The government could be so much better and people could have so much more of a voice if we just made it clear to the boys in parliament that they work for us not the other way around. This is OUR country and they serve US.

As well everything i just said is theory. While typing it i could think of dozens of reasons as to why it would explode in our faces and screw up my countries economy and well being. I just feel that if we had a 100% voter rate and split the power up more the government would no long only listen to lobbyists, but rather to everyone. Make the parties fight for our vote for again on the issues. Make smear campaigns a reason to not vote for the one smearing.

Right now its all about appeasing the lobbyists. Why make the 51% of the non voter citizens happy when you can make 30% of the voting citizens happy and win a Majority party. Not to mention a fat 'donation' for your next political campaign.

Its nice to talk to someone about this and not have them freaking out at me. Thank you for a pleasant conversation.

 

[deathbydeath]

anarchy would never and will never work. Like communism.

it relies on people abiding by levels of common courtesy so that you can live your life unhindered... that isn't going to happen, the stronger will bully the weaker so the stronger can live better. Then the stronger forces the weaker to do all the work... a voila you're in a totalitarian regime with the strongest at the head of "government"

Human nature always wins out.

When you think about it, both anarchy and Communism have the potential to work fine, it's just that humans have the tendency to be total dicks, either to others next to them or under them, heck, sometimes above them

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Anarchy, like other theoretical but not real world successful ideas like communism, is all about the natural goodness and cooperation of humans. I have never seen anything even resembling natual selflessness and cooperation in more than a few indivduals. Anarchy, communism, and the like will all end with someone managing to take power through their refusal to play nice and then you end up with a totalitarian government.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I'd say the argument FOR anarchy is that such is the natural order of things. In spite of the perception otherwise, the concept of "rights" and the like are created through society or rather granted by the benevolance of society. The truth of the matter is your rights only extend as far as you can defend them, and to misquote Heinlein the only things you really own is that which you can carry in one hand at a dead run.

 

[Chicago Ted]

I'm all for the minimalization of government, but total anarchy is one of those things that's perfect on paper. In theory it's sound and it would work perfectly, but human nature causes an inbalance that creates problems with it that make it impractical and impossible to truely have. You know, just like communism.

 

[Billion Backs]

Anarchism as a political movement has nothing to do with chaos. It has to do with removing authority figures like governments and, well, hoping that people will get along without Big Brother.

While I more then support that idea, I do not find it very practical at this time and especially applied to very large groups of people. So it goes into the same bin as communism - good in an utopian sense, shitty in real life sense.

Now when it comes to conscious destruction and causing chaos, that wouldn't be labeled anarchy. Maybe destructive discordianism or something, I'm pulling a new name out of my ass right now. And I don't mind that. As a nihilist I can more then understand that point of view. Life's shit, society's shit, and you don't care about following the same bullshit society rules, having a boring life being a corporate slave and dieing fat of heart attack with some dumb ***** for a wife and a couple of dumb kids, so you decide to go apeshit and embrace destruction, both self-destruction and general destruction.

I can understand where that kind of people would be coming from. Destruction is sexy.

 

[Billion Backs]

Just now, I'm using a community based product, the firefox web browser. Made by humans who gave me this means of surfing this web for free. Thanks by the way. I like my firefox and have customized it to my liking by employing add-ons, which I also got for free.

All this I'm typing on a computer I built myself; after I asked some guys on an internet forum which parts they could recommend and gave me great advice where to buy the components and how to assemble them...

I guess I must be on a lucky streak. Humans are definitely not supposed to play nice. Where is the backdoor trojan in the firefox and why didn't those forum members screw me over by giving me false advice or lying to me? Hell, why do they even invest their spare time in asking questions by people from across the country they have never even seen? Why don't they stick to their computer knowledge and instead sell if for good money?


Answer:
Humans are SOCIAL animals. E.G. apes delouse each other. If one never returns the favour, he gets exempted from delousing by the group. If you act like an asshole and keep screwing other people over, you get first warned and then expelled from the group. Humans and apes have strong feelings about being cheated and will not tolerate such behaviour.

But then you consider that it's not all that simple and there's far more then one group. And being a member of one group might mean being hostile to another.

You get cultural expectations, different bullshit superstitions, different values, and so on.

 

[Wedlock49]

anarchy would never and will never work. Like communism.

it relies on people abiding by levels of common courtesy so that you can live your life unhindered... that isn't going to happen, the stronger will bully the weaker so the stronger can live better. Then the stronger forces the weaker to do all the work... a voila you're in a totalitarian regime with the strongest at the head of "government"

Human nature always wins out.

When you think about it, both anarchy and Communism have the potential to work fine, it's just that humans have the tendency to be total dicks, either to others next to them or under them, heck, sometimes above them

All you did was repeat what I said.

 

[Wedlock49]

You get cultural expectations, different bullshit superstitions, different values, and so on.

Oh, you mean religion?
Yeah, especially the ones "of peace" are the best invention for mass genocides humankind ever invented.

If we changed to direct democracy tomorrow, it would "just" mean we will decide about local matters by, let's say, employing modern technology like an internet-based voicing and voting system. We won't transform from a nation state into a prehistoric tribal group... we just would take up our duties and proud rights as citizens and decide about things we care about most: The political shape of the very district we live in.

Seriously, take less of that shit you are plastering your brain with...
Is this some bad Mad Max science-fiction write-up convention?

Oh sorry, after reading that uninformed first posting in this thread again, it is.
Give me your imbeciles, your (mentally) poor, your huddled masses, yearning to write about things they don't even remotely understand.

It appears that you fail to see how one person being "bad" can ruin everyone being good. It's human nature to be social, yes but with that also comes a social hierachy, the want to be the best and to be the "alpha".

Your belief is overly utopic and you do need to remember that the world IS full of morons and weak willed peons.

As for that last comment, do you want to tug on your dick any harder? I could say the same thing about your thought on a human utopia doing good for everyone for no better reason than "just 'cuz".

 

[Lucifron]

Rejoice, for I have finally returned from my vacation. Now on to the subject at hand. Anarchy. I just don't get it. Humans are naturally ordered beings, why would any of them promote chaos? Humans have always created order and laws and governments to enforce this; so why would anyone support absolute chaos? I can easily understand the rejection of specific governments, but the rejection of all governments in any form is illogical. I just don't understand it. Thoughts?

Humans are ordered beings? Since when? It is precisely because of our irrational/chaotic and self-serving nature why communism and anarchy already fail at a conceptual level.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Well think of it like this. Who's more improtant in the construction of a road, the government or the engineers and road crews?. in the same way a company head isn't really important, all they really do is rent factories to the workers who produce the wealth.

So you remove government. Think about it. Who will build the roads? Enterprising individuals. How will they make their money back? A toll on every road. Or perhaps monthly payments to use the road, which is basically a tax. If they are not allowed to to do this, why would they bother building these things in the first place? How would they limit their usage? Public or quasi-public goods cannot be fairly provided by markets, which is all that will exist without a government. That is ultimately why I cannot advocate removal of an accountable body for the provision of such goods and services.

I couldn't stand to only have healthcare like they have in the USA, for example. Or streetlamps, or lighthouses and such.