Anarchy

[ticktockclok]

When you think of anarchy, what exactly do you think of?

For me, its a free society without government.

[Shamou]

One word says it all... bedlam...

.

[Matthew Shea]

Perhaps we should give the world's anarchists their own island somewhere and see what happens. Maybe it'll remind us all of why we need our government.

[Chet]

Or then again, maybe let us see we don't really need them

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Perhaps we should give the world's anarchists their own island somewhere and see what happens. Maybe it'll remind us all of why we need our government.

Anarchy has been tried in the sixties... they were called hippies... did not work...

.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Shamou

Anarchy has been tried in the sixties... they were called hippies... did not work...

Right.......

Perhaps we should give the world's anarchists their own island somewhere and see what happens. Maybe it'll remind us all of why we need our government.

Why do you think we need government?

[Akashic_Librarian]

The problem with Anarchists is they need something to hate. If Anarchists ruled, it would be paradoxical!

[medaille]

For me, Anarchism is just the lack of top-down orders from the government.

It has it's good qualities and it has its bad qualities.

anarchism in my mind fosters community and independence of local communities much better than a highly industrialized government. It allows for the pursuit of the self better than a highly industrialized government because a highly industrialized government changes the person to conform to it and not the other way around.

Anarchism would be considered more natural than government and closer to the conditions of nature and Darwinism.

That said, it fails in certain areas. Anarchism by definition doesn't do anything on a big scale real well. Anarchism won't make interstates or battleships. There are some things that need to be industrialized to a certain extent for efficiency reasons.

The problem with Anarchists is they need something to hate. If Anarchists ruled, it would be paradoxical!

That statement is illogical by definition. Anarchists don't rule anything because once they do they cease to be anarchists. They also don't need something to hate, they just hate being oppressed like everyone else hates being oppressed. You could make the same argument for any other group of people not entirely docile in their political views.

As a society we need to move closer to anarchism. Our government is way too big and is ineffective due to its industrialization. We would be better off shifting to a more natural and organic method of organization because it would allow for more freedom and for people to fulfill themselves better.

[Chet]

an·ar·chy [ ánnərkee ]
noun
Definition:
1. chaotic situation: a situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
2. lack of government: the absence of any formal system of government in a society

Hate what? its is simply a call for lack of formal authority, no need to hate anything.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

The problem with Anarchists is they need something to hate. If Anarchists ruled, it would be paradoxical!

Anarchists need something to hate? What?

Anarchists wouldn't rule! Anarchists are simply against government: a monopoly on force over any given area. You would be free to choose however you want to live, just like choosing a car or a computer. Not everyone has a Dell. Not everyone has a Camry.

People have a general misunderstanding of what anarchy really is. Newspaper headlines such as "Descent into anarchy" and such don't help too much. This is what anarchy is. No government.

Here's an example of a possible anarchist society, though much is not known about it.

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

Why do you think we need government?

People hurt one another.

[Asmoday]

Oh yes, bring on this, "anarchy".

I will do quite nicely

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

People hurt one another.

People hurt one another because of government/national identity.

[Shamou]

How old are you ticktockclok...???

.

[Uplift]

Indigenous Australians had no formal government or organisations in the way that western culture understands. In their case, it is an extremely successful way to live. Theirs is the oldest continual culture by miles. It has existed for at least 40,000 years, and plenty of evidence points to 100,000 years. They ask the same question as Shamou, for the same reason. How old is present western culture? But then there is always the other side of the argument, the 'can't teach an old dog new tricks' one.

There must be a way to blend successfull elements of each style of living together, to create a way of life that fosters all on this planet. As I see it, the only stumbling block is actually, honestly choosing it, and believing in it.

[medaille]

Originally Posted by Shamou

How old are you ticktockclok...???

.

I don't see where this came from. He hasn't said anything to justify a comment like that.

It's a legitimate question to wonder if more people die from wars and prejudices based on nationalism and imperialism or that would die from people being people.

The necessity of a strong government to keep people from unleashing their evil selves is Bush league thinking. Why dwell in the fear.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Indigenous Australians had no formal government or organisations in the way that western culture understands. In their case, it is an extremely successful way to live. Theirs is the oldest continual culture by miles. It has existed for at least 40,000 years, and plenty of evidence points to 100,000 years.

More info on "Indigenous Australians"

.

[Iksander]

Anarchy, as said above, does not scale very well. It is a group mind in the 'tribal' state that can exist with moderate numbers for the life of that 'state' (someone mentioned Australians).

To 'go back' would be, to essentially, devolve; when there are numerous possibilities that promote an increased population and an increased awareness of individuality amongst the members of a population (providing the population as a whole with its own awareness).

Society at the moment is much like an Ant colony - but, what if every person were to be at their greatest potential? The amazing things that might be because of such an aspiration are hard, even for me, to imagine.

While I highly support small, cohesive, and elite groups (because focus and communication is intensive); the whole of humanity is also my father - just as the earth is my mother, of whom I also have the utmost respect for. Of whom deserve Anarchy any less than you would deserve to be kidnapped and tortured for freedom of opinion.

Our very existence would seem to rest upon the concepts of War, Anarchy, and Terror. Without them, we would have no contrasting point of view to say, "My side is green.".

[Uplift]

Whilst you demonstrate regularly that a lot of your 'experience' and 'wisdom' is actually confined to 'winkipedia' shamou , I don't rely on it at all. I have a Degree in Indigenous Australian Studies, and am on the Dean's Honour Roll, for my efforts. Citing 'winkipedia' as your argument would result in an F... for fail, in any respected University. So you get an F. Don't quit your dayjob, stick to being a chiro. But then if you wish to suggest that western education is lacking...

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by medaille

Why dwell in the fear.

No one is dwelling on fear... just on rational thinking... and not on Utopia...

.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Shamou

No one is dwelling on fear... just on rational thinking... and not on Utopia...

I'm fifteen. If you're going to be prejudiced based on my age, go ahead.

You are dwelling on fear. You keep making assumptions about anarchy without exploring as to what it really is. Anarchy is not utopia. Anarchists are not striving for a perfect word. However, they strive for a better world, a free world. Rape and murder will always exist. Does this mean you shouldn't strive to stop them?

[Iksander]

Education teaches you how to march, it stifles original thought with the idea that there is an authority greater than your own intelligence.

Stop being the University's ♥♥♥♥♥.

[Iksander]

You can be just as free now, as you could with Anarchy - no one is stopping you. The idea that you need something to be free, IS, fear based thinking.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Shamou

No one is dwelling on fear... just on rational thinking... and not on Utopia...

.

Shamou, why do you feel that a planet where all are happy and successful is impossible? Why do you insist on something different? What have you got to lose? Is that how Anthony Robbins tackles things? Only a few weeks ago I listened to one of his latest powertalks, and he's advising a woman, who's just been raped, and who's son is dying of cancer, and who is totally devastated and without hope, to believe beyond all doubt, to be certain beyond all doubt that her son can heal. And not just to believe it, to act like it is a done deal. To believe that no matter what anything is possible, and to convey that message to her son with all her power. To be the parent that he needs, and to give him the hope that he needs. That was his advice to the woman who had just been raped. And yet, here we have a millionaire, a man who by his own assertion 'has got it all' not only telling kids not to believe in a planet where all can foster and be happy and fullfilled, but mocking them in the process.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Education teaches you how to march, it stifles original thought with the idea that there is an authority greater than your own intelligence.

Stop being the University's ♥♥♥♥♥.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Iksander

You can be just as free now, as you could with Anarchy - no one is stopping you. The idea that you need something to be free, IS, fear based thinking.

I never really understood any of the self-help stuff about consciousness and what not. I'm not sure if this is related to any of that, but could you please explain a bit more?

[medaille]

Originally Posted by Iksander

You can be just as free now, as you could with Anarchy - no one is stopping you. The idea that you need something to be free, IS, fear based thinking.

Of course you can be free any time. That said the majority of people aren't aware and most are still living in the bottom portions of consciousness where live is more bleak than beautiful.

The type of society you live in has a dramatic effect on the people that live there. Sure the highly conscious will be conscious wherever, but the others can benefit by reinforcing desirable traits such as self-reliance, self-motivation, and personal exploration. Our society stifles these qualities, whereas something closer to anarchy would help reinforce those qualities in more people. We need some organization, but we need less than we have now because we've started molding people to the system and not using the system only to enhance the people.

Jeff Vail has a free ebook A theory of power which describes the differences between industrialization (top-down) and rhizomic (peer-to-peer) power structures.

http://www.jeffvail.net/atheoryofpower.pdf

Ivan Illich has done work which talks more specifically about the same issues. His work is very valuable at understanding the tools and structures that we use.

Tools of Conviviality is also available free online:

Tools for Conviviality

[Scin]

Anarchy necessarily requires the complete absence of a governmental organization to exist. The theory goes that the elimination of government allows for complete, or at least increased, freedom.

What anarchy does not take into account is the other half of the Control coin: society itself.

The only way anarchy could exist is if there was only one person in the world. The reason for this is that human nature naturally gravitates toward control and order; evidence for this can be seen hundreds of thousands of times throughout history. Genghis Khan is a good example of what can rise out of anarchy.

In history, the natural order of development from an anarchic society is to an authoritarian one. There doesn't have to be a "government" for control to be pushed on others, either; societal rules inevitably develop over time, and members of society are constrained by those rules. As any sociologist will tell you, where there are rules, a system of punishment for breaking them will develop.

Homo sapiens is a group-oriented species. It is impossible for us to operate for extended periods of time in a void. That's the "how" side of things; it's not possible. Now I'll get into the "why" side of things - why anarchy is impractical.

Progress as a species - whether technological, societal, or economic - depends on organization. The United States is highly advanced because of its highly specialized society (among other things), something that cannot occur in an anarchic society.

Further reading:

Hirshleifer, Jack. 1995. Anarchy and its Breakdown. The Journal of Political Economy 103 (February): 26-52.

[silicon toad2000]

I don't know much about anarchy and I still get confused over right wing and left wing politics, I forget which is which. I still ask dumb questions like which end does socialism fit on, where does communism fit. If stalin was running for office today would he be labor(democrat) or liberal(republican).
I think the problem with anarchists (aside from the sociopaths) is that they're not really anti governement, they are against what the government has become.
I tend to oversimplify things. If you put 5 anarchists on a island and they need to have a signal fire, food and shelter. they'll cope (assuming there is food and stuff). Put another 5 and they'll be ok but it will get a bit messy, someone will need to decide where they all go to the toilet so there aren't faeces everywhere. Put another 20 on there and they wont be organised enough to all take turns tending the fire and organising the toilet and food so they'll have to nominate someone to watch the fire and the rest will make sure that person gets enough food, so they'll take a portion of their food and give it to that person, kinda like a tax. Same with the toilets and so on. Kinda sounds like they'll have a group of people governing the management of the utilities on the island. They'd be happy with that because they feel they are running it.
Therein lies the problem, people today feel so disjointed from the government and the government has taken on roles that it should never have taken on. The government is there to run the country for the people, not to run the people for the country.

[Uplift]

I guess it depends on your definition of 'highly advanced'. Some mightn't consider having and needing ever more extreme weaponry, an increasing shortage of prisons, ever increasing crime rates, drug abuse, homelessness, depression, a huge pollution problem, 'enter at your own risk' neighbourhoods, and corruption by the highest powers ('I didn't have sex with her, she tricked me and I unwittingly stuck my you know what in her mouth while I was saving the world'... or 'weapons of mass destruction, they are there, they are just invisible and the idiots we hired to find them haven't got a clue, so lets have a war, and show what some good ol' boys from texas can do') as highly advanced.

[ticktockclok]

You guys still do not understand anarchy.

Anarchy would not be pure chaos, or "bedlam" as Shamou put it.

It merely means there would be an absence of a monopoly on force. People could choose whatever system they wanted to live in.

Originally Posted by Scin

The only way anarchy could exist is if there was only one person in the world. The reason for this is that human nature naturally gravitates toward control and order; evidence for this can be seen hundreds of thousands of times throughout history. Genghis Khan is a good example of what can rise out of anarchy.

Genghis Khan. Khan means ruler. Doh.


silicontoad: No, we're not against what government has become, we're against government. And you probably should be confused about right/left wing politics. It's a stupid idea; it's too black and white. I saw one of these "political maps" with a 3-d plane, if I find it, I'll show it to you.

Thanks to the rational people who are in this discussion- Scin, Iksander, silicontoad. Answering your doubts now will help me answer other's in the future.