Anarchy. What emotion does that word provoke?
- Thread starter Mithander
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is about Rousseau. His theory of the state of nature is dependant on a positive view of human nature and believes that it is property that which corrupts us (which can also be linked to socialism). If we take Hobbes view of the state of nature written in a century of the Rousseau's he describes the state of nature as "nasty, brutish and short". His view is a negative view on human nature. Like i said with Mill a person can disguise their actions as the general will but are in fact only interrested in their own interests. Whilst the people who origionaly formed the commune are able to live in peace and halmony there may be a few in the community that become unsettled and begin to "rebel" and become greedy. Yesterday i tried to look for the commune in Australia that unfortunatlly has fallen to drugs and other problems, its in my philosophy notes somewhere which arn't where i am. Sorry its not a big cohrernt reply i've just woken up. The problem with arguments which stem from the state of nature is that we basically just don't know what it is like. We can try to re-create it like in Locke (i think its lock) "game" but the philosophers have ever come to a state of nature is during civil war. Don't get me wrong i would like to think that it is possible for humans to create an anarchic state however for me humans can be greedy and lazy, this is probably most highlighted in the effects of hurrican Katrina. I'm in the UK so i saw it through the media. The whole town came to a stand still and it shadowed the Hobbsean view that life in New Orleans at that moment really was nasty brutish and short as people seemed to only consider their needs. Theres also a case of a utopian society that was created but then the creaters accountant stole the funds (i'll find it later when i'm more awake or if anyone knows it).Mithander said:
edit: thought of something esle insprired by another post. Many of anarchy's beliefs can also be found in many other political ideoligies (my days my spelling is getting worse) so yeah i'll go back to bed now but i am biased, my phil politics teacher was extrememly opposed to anarchism which was the only thing he told his personal opinion on, he was a good teacher. *falls asleep*
Personally, I'm a firm supporter in anarchy. I believe every single person should hold themselves accountable to themselves, for no other reason than because it's the right thing to do, and the government should go fuck itself. It's an idealistic notion, and as such will never be effectively put into practice on a large scale, but that's where I'd like to see governments going.Mithander said:
While I firmly agree with basically everything you've said about political philosophy, I feel the need to point out that Anarchy, defined as the absence of the State, is the extreme Right on the political spectrum. The spectrum is defined as the most extreme Left being complete government control of everything (see Fascism, Communism, etc) while the extreme Right is complete lack of government control (ie. Anarchy).Rooster Cogburn said:
Just throwing that out there.
I feel neutral towards it? Happy thoughts don't fill my head upon hearing the word anarchy, but neither do evil or angry ones.
I find the concept interesting but doubt it could work for long in any given society.
I find the concept interesting but doubt it could work for long in any given society.
I think this is where the bad conception comes from. I think (but I'm not entirely sure) that at one point, there were terrorists claiming to be in favour of anarchy, and therefore determined to bring the government crashing down by force of arms.Proteus214 said:
Another possible reason is that, if anarchists are against government, then government will be against anarchy, and thus will put out vast anti-anarchy propaganda, conditioning us into a negative response
I think of that book "The Man who was Tuesday".
I also think about Steven Pinker's book the Blank Slate where he talks about his disillusionment with anarchism after the police went on strike in Canada, and within 24 hours there was wide-scale looting and chaos.
I also think about Steven Pinker's book the Blank Slate where he talks about his disillusionment with anarchism after the police went on strike in Canada, and within 24 hours there was wide-scale looting and chaos.
I agree with the people saying it's a Utopia.
It wouldn't really work because there'll always be some form of lack.
If it's not about material goods, then it'll be about status, friends, women, whatever.
Some form of envy will always exist in any human society and this will inspire violence.
In my opinion, a society can't work completely without regulation.
It wouldn't really work because there'll always be some form of lack.
If it's not about material goods, then it'll be about status, friends, women, whatever.
Some form of envy will always exist in any human society and this will inspire violence.
In my opinion, a society can't work completely without regulation.
I've always taken anarchy as every man for himself, not always in the sense that you might kill to get what you need, but that everyone does things their own way without being told what is right or wrong and being guided by any institution.
I think anarchy can work, but not now. I think it is a futile effort to support anarchy when most civilisations have had some authority for centuries. You take away that guidance, and you wont get some utopia where no one is governed, you will get a power void to be filled by the next, possibly worse, authority. It would be impossibly hard to implement, and the current systems work great.
I think anarchy can work, but not now. I think it is a futile effort to support anarchy when most civilisations have had some authority for centuries. You take away that guidance, and you wont get some utopia where no one is governed, you will get a power void to be filled by the next, possibly worse, authority. It would be impossibly hard to implement, and the current systems work great.
Many people express fear and derision because they know they wouldn't survive in a truly free and chaotic world. Some attach to it because they wish they lived in a world free of structure where they could be themselves (and do whatever they want) every day. Most of these people don't understand that true anarchy would still involve self-government. It's mankind's way, we can't survive without order so we impose it on nature's chaos for better or worse.Mithander said:
Which is the biggest problem with the vast majority of Anarchistic philosophies. It requires each individual to hold themselves accountable to themselves. And since it's human nature to try to avoid punishment, and everyone has at least occasional moments of weakness, it collapses under its own weight. I would love it if people would do so, and I do my damnedest to do it to myself. But unfortunately, that scenario is extremely unlikely.300lb. Samoan said:
I think of two things both True Anarchy and personal freedom of mind, body and spirit and I think of the fake Anarchy which talks of chaos, destruction and anger. I'd recommend reading Percy Shelley's poem "The masque of Anarchy" to get a true perspective of it.
The word makes me tired =S
It's a nice idea, isn't it? A well ordered society that nevertheless allows each member to govern themselves. Unfortunately, it will never work like that. I realise I'm hardly the first person on this thread to make this point, but at the end of the day, someone is going to want to be king of the hill. It's just human nature. At the same time, there will be people who admire this would-be king of the hill, and who will follow him/her. Mabe there are some others who want to preserve their little slice of the supposedly peace and freedom-loving anarchy. Inevitably, they'll come into some sort of conflict with the would-be king....
For as long as there have been human societies, there have been governmental systems of *some* sort - but they all have a leader (or leaders). Tribes have their chiefs. Monarchies have thier Kings and Queens. Democracies have their Presidents. Dictatorships have thier dictators. Some are worse than others, some are better.
What if, in this anarchic society of autonomy, one member of the community turns out to be a bit of a psychopath, and starts murdering people? How do you solve the problem without violating that person's right to govern their own actions? Or do you just let them keep going until they've turned your community into Silent Hill?
It's a nice idea, isn't it? A well ordered society that nevertheless allows each member to govern themselves. Unfortunately, it will never work like that. I realise I'm hardly the first person on this thread to make this point, but at the end of the day, someone is going to want to be king of the hill. It's just human nature. At the same time, there will be people who admire this would-be king of the hill, and who will follow him/her. Mabe there are some others who want to preserve their little slice of the supposedly peace and freedom-loving anarchy. Inevitably, they'll come into some sort of conflict with the would-be king....
For as long as there have been human societies, there have been governmental systems of *some* sort - but they all have a leader (or leaders). Tribes have their chiefs. Monarchies have thier Kings and Queens. Democracies have their Presidents. Dictatorships have thier dictators. Some are worse than others, some are better.
What if, in this anarchic society of autonomy, one member of the community turns out to be a bit of a psychopath, and starts murdering people? How do you solve the problem without violating that person's right to govern their own actions? Or do you just let them keep going until they've turned your community into Silent Hill?
For some reason it reminds me of liberation. We don't need a government and police because it isn't needed. The people police themselves. There wouldn't be as big of political problems and less bureaucratic nonsense.
I always think of my favorite movie growing up The Road Warrior, the second in the Mad Max trilogy. A short rundown for you kids out there, the movie was very similar to Fallout: a shortage of gasoline causes nuclear war between the US and Russia and the story takes place in Australia (assumably because it would be one of the few habitable locations remaining). Mel Gibsons character, Max, comes across a community and is douchey at first but comes to their rescue in the end.
To digress, on a small level, such as in a commune it works as does communism. Escalated to the larger world it doesn't. In The Road Warrior, the Max character comes across a small community built around an old refinery. People work together and everyone pulls their weight, free to leave if they wish but sticking together for the common good (ie the small commune). Then there are the raiders who ride in and try to take the communities gas by terror and brutal force (ie the larger world). That is what I think of.
To digress, on a small level, such as in a commune it works as does communism. Escalated to the larger world it doesn't. In The Road Warrior, the Max character comes across a small community built around an old refinery. People work together and everyone pulls their weight, free to leave if they wish but sticking together for the common good (ie the small commune). Then there are the raiders who ride in and try to take the communities gas by terror and brutal force (ie the larger world). That is what I think of.
Actually the word you're looking for is either 'disobedience' or 'rebellion'.Aardvark said:
OT, the feeling the word 'anarchy' invokes with me is... well, it's disgust. It has been well established that having law and order works, and to upset or overthrow this system is (in my eyes) to invite chaos and (eventually) horrifying savagery.