Blood Brain Barrier said:
Even if they don't want that protection?
I get what you're saying, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the chaos and brutality of the kind of environment we're proposing (extremely tentatively). I've emphasised throughout the thread that humans, as natural organisms, should at least have the option and opportunity to live within nature. This doesn't mean a few weeks camping in a highly regulated state park nor does it mean a utopia; rather simply a place where food and shelter is provided through natural outlets (which people have forgotten, are free) rather than through the route society imposes on us, without our consent. We grant animals this privilege - failing to grant humans the same is like keeping all birds in a locked cage.
Some people would gladly sacrifice some human rights in exchange for living without highly unfair and discriminatory laws and property rights along with their entrenched unfairness and disadvantage. The animal world is brutal sometimes but we don't judge it; why should humans be different?
Oh, so an anarchic Hippie commune, but with less K um-by-ya guitar singalongs. Well I can see that possibly working, but without any laws to protect people from murder, theft, rape, insurance salesmen etc. I can't imagine too many people signing up for it.
The main problem I'd see with this is that people would naturally create laws and society in order to provide themselves with some sort of order. People need leaders to organise them, especially in situations where survival is dependent on themselves with no outside help. People want laws because no one likes to live in fear of being murdered in their sleep, or being thrown out of their living quarters without any notice, or having all their possessions stolen when they were away.
Even animal groups have social structures and job divisions, from the worker ant to the Silverback Gorilla to the hunting lioness to the Cleaner Wrasse. There's a reason for that; it's necessary to gather as many resources as possible, and security from the things that want to harm you and others.
Resources are free in the wild, but it would take a huge area to supply the needs of a small community.
Ok, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of setting aside a specific area of land somewhere in a country where people can go to live close to nature in the style of Australian aborigine bushmen, and I suppose that not paying taxes or V.A.T. etc. would be part of the lifestyle since their needs and governance are now pretty much separated from the jurisdiction of local government. The problem I have comes with the idea that basic human rights no longer apply. These rights aren't there to unnecessarily restrict people who want to break them, they're there to protect those who would be affected if they were broken.
True anarchism is kinda perverted in that it allows all things, and the only checks and balances of the system are vigilante-ism and personal power. I don't see legally barring rape and murder on the commune as any huge violation of peoples Rights to do whatever they want, because the point of it is a basic right to protect people in situations where they cannot protect themselves; in situations where one person is enforcing absolute harm unto another unwilling person. In those cases I think that the state should still enforce their rights.
Take the infamous Mormon communes in America, which were basically self contained communities, that the state had very little say in, and the harm that came from that as men enforced their polygamy laws on multiple women including many underaged girls. I believe that the state had a right and a duty to protect those girls from those men, and it wasn't a blow to the rights of the men, as their desires were incredibly harmful and malicious to those girls and women.
Having a seperate area for people to live closer to nature: Yeah that's pretty cool.
Abandoning all rights and living in absolute anarchy: No, that will only create harm in the long term.
