Poll: Anarchism

[Akai Shizuku]

Spoiler

An anarchic system could not support humankind on the scale that it exists today. It just takes too much organization and administration to support a civilization of even 10000 people, let alone 6.75 billion. Perhaps one day we might not need government in the modern sense, but it would require a massive and basic restructuring of society. Even then, there would have to be some form of administration.

Yes, thank you for illustrating why I said to break the community into towns.

You can have a cookie now.

The only problem with this is that individual towns don't have the wide diversity of resources that we use today. The towns would have to conquer or trade, which would lead to alliances.

An example of this effect in reverse is the beginning of the iron ages. During the iron age, all that a group needed to war was iron, a single resource. This led to the Bronze Age collapse, and such eras as the Greek Dark ages. Before this, the fact that copper and tin had to be obtained to make weapons. This required trade, which helped to build the mighty civilizations of the Bronze age.

In modern times, we require a much wider array of resources for even a fraction of our technology. Anyways, the concept of a town pretty much requires a government.

Who says we couldn't trade? By what arbitrary designation would we not have access to all the boats, planes, and resources needed to do so?

By no means am I saying we couldn't trade. I am merely pointing out that trading connects and leads to administration and alliance. I gave the example of the collapse of the large bronze age empires from the marginalization of trade.

What's wrong with administration and alliance? As long as there's no government, it's all good.

But any stable and effective administration or alliance (basically any good one) is much closer to a government than anarchism. You could argue that today's corporations are what really control and are the government. Just because there is no official government does not mean that there is no de facto government.

...And it would quickly dissolve once it is no longer necessary.

 

[Fud]

Spoiler

An anarchic system could not support humankind on the scale that it exists today. It just takes too much organization and administration to support a civilization of even 10000 people, let alone 6.75 billion. Perhaps one day we might not need government in the modern sense, but it would require a massive and basic restructuring of society. Even then, there would have to be some form of administration.

Yes, thank you for illustrating why I said to break the community into towns.

You can have a cookie now.

The only problem with this is that individual towns don't have the wide diversity of resources that we use today. The towns would have to conquer or trade, which would lead to alliances.

An example of this effect in reverse is the beginning of the iron ages. During the iron age, all that a group needed to war was iron, a single resource. This led to the Bronze Age collapse, and such eras as the Greek Dark ages. Before this, the fact that copper and tin had to be obtained to make weapons. This required trade, which helped to build the mighty civilizations of the Bronze age.

In modern times, we require a much wider array of resources for even a fraction of our technology. Anyways, the concept of a town pretty much requires a government.

Who says we couldn't trade? By what arbitrary designation would we not have access to all the boats, planes, and resources needed to do so?

By no means am I saying we couldn't trade. I am merely pointing out that trading connects and leads to administration and alliance. I gave the example of the collapse of the large bronze age empires from the marginalization of trade.

What's wrong with administration and alliance? As long as there's no government, it's all good.

But any stable and effective administration or alliance (basically any good one) is much closer to a government than anarchism. You could argue that today's corporations are what really control and are the government. Just because there is no official government does not mean that there is no de facto government.

...And it would quickly dissolve once it is no longer necessary.

There will always be a need for trade of some resource. There is nowhere with a concentrated enough amount and variety of resources to support any civilization past the iron age. And if that system would dissolve once it is no longer necessary, why does our current system still persist? We have developed through anarchy to government for a reason.

 

[SsilverR]

**CUT**

it would be a battle for information as well as power .. people will want the smartest and the strongest on their side .. soon there won't have to be one or the other .. the dominant sides will have people that are both super strong and super smart .. this will take a while though ... they'll be educated and trained as the civilisation expands with nothing but the best

and from there .. the new and improved humanity will develope a new and improved system of order and peace (no one wants war forever .. and when you're the winner all that's left to do is improve) .. obviously it will be a bit more complex than how i explained it, but i'm on the PS3 so i can't type much

humanity will learn from it's past mistakes and won't make them again ... i don't see anarchy as a way of life ... i see it as a whitewash on humanity

 

[SsilverR]

**CUT**

before i make a serious reply i just want to ask .... are you seriously convinced that a retarded bunch of overpowered rock swingers have what it takes to survive complex clan wars .. did you REALLY think your response through? did you really understand what i was saying or were you in so much of a rush to argue that you just completely failed to see my point

Do you really think that a bunch of overpowered rock swingers could survive in the modern world as anything substantial? Anarchy would led issd to anarchy. But is that really the best society and species for the species? Seeing as how we've already passed through that situation of anarchy, I think not. Genes are not the only thing that the concept of 'natural selection' can be applied to.

firstly ... ah screw it, i already answered this .... read where i recently quoted marq

 

[CWestfall]

This is the same as why Communism will never work off paper either. In theory, a place with no police force where everyone does as they please sounds great, as does a place where everyone is an equal and has their equal share in everything. The problem lies in the fact that humanity as a whole is an inherently horrible species. We destroy what we can't have, murder and violate our own kind and always want to be on the top of the pile, even if it has to be a pile of headless bodies. Someone will always group together with some others to be a little more 'equal' than everyone else and then other people will follow suit, leading to gang wars. Eventually one will be the most powerful and they will take over as a governing body and we're back where we started.

I was going to write out a long reply but I'd rather point at this post and say "pretty much that."

 

[4fromK]

ugh... this is stupid.
I chose "will and can work" because there arent a lot of requirements involved in anarchism "working" "working" for anarchism is that there is no rules. that is all. theres really not a lot that it can fail at.

however, It could also be said that anarchy is the complete opposite of something working, it only ever happens when a country becomes so corrupt that it degrades into chaos, and therefore it cannot be seen to "work" because it is the opposite of "working". Anarchy never became desirable until whingy, fucking retarded punk rockers in the seventies started bitching and moaning about how much better it would be if you didnt have to ask consent before sticking you dick in her.

 

[Fud]

**CUT**

before i make a serious reply i just want to ask .... are you seriously convinced that a retarded bunch of overpowered rock swingers have what it takes to survive complex clan wars .. did you REALLY think your response through? did you really understand what i was saying or were you in so much of a rush to argue that you just completely failed to see my point

Do you really think that a bunch of overpowered rock swingers could survive in the modern world as anything substantial? Anarchy would led issd to anarchy. But is that really the best society and species for the species? Seeing as how we've already passed through that situation of anarchy, I think not. Genes are not the only thing that the concept of 'natural selection' can be applied to.

firstly ... ah screw it, i already answered this .... read where i recently quoted marq

I have to agree with Marq here. You're arguing in favor of anarchy as a form of natural eugenics, as natural selection. However, humanity has already passed through anarchy, and so has gotten basically all of the benefits. Any genes that would get culled have already been culled. And that culling led to today. Those 'super strong and super smart' have created today's society.