Anarchy - Infeasible or Inevitable?

[Michael Chui]

Thread was begun here, but I think Keith's right about splitting it off. I don't think that even moderators can branch a thread like that, though, so I'm just making a new one and linking back.

My understanding of the current positions:
KevinG believes that it is impossible to move towards an anarchistic "utopia" from where we are now.

Keith believes that a Consciousness Revolution will result in an anarchistic society comprised of "aware and conscious" people, doing away with any need for government.

Here's my take.

What is government? Why does it exist?

I believe the current theory of anthropology (no sources; just memory) is that government arose somewhere during the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to agrarian societies. Government is the practice of placing upon a subset of a society the responsibility to maintain the stability of that society. Its role, therefore, is primarily one of mediation, whether internal to the society or external, with another society. Today, we substitute the word "society" with "nation", and it makes as much sense.

Lao-tzu may have written about codes of morality and justice, but that is not entirely what laws are. Laws are statements of agreement. It might be as simple as saying, "George will do the laundry every Friday." I'm not convinced that even a society comprised completely of aware and conscious individuals would be capable of functioning without such agreement.

Once you add laws to a society, you no longer have your standard anarchy. This doesn't mean you have a government, though, so perhaps you can still call it an anarchy. I would call it a democracy; a direct democracy. A rule completely by all the people. This is, ultimately, not scalable. So either you split apart into separate societies, or you begin adding representatives to do the heavy lifting for you, i.e. government.

So scale is the first problem of anarchy, and it's not one that I think can be addressed by the consciousness of its citizens.

The second problem is the one KevinG brought up, and it's the fact that despite the drastic increase in conscious people, I think they are still very much a minority in the world. What, really, is the likelihood that anyone could bring them all together? Wouldn't their instinct to help others more likely spread them out? Sure, they'd band together to achieve things, but it's so that they can reach a larger population, not for any internal reasons of forming a separate society. To withdraw from the world is, in many ways, very selfish.

[JohnLong]

Government has a few more features than what you've described. The big one is that a government will not let anyone compete with it or withdraw from it, at least in the geographical area it has claimed for itself. It's based on force and coercion, and if we think such things are bad, how can we think government can be good?

Let me explain how I think it might happen, the kind of direction I want to see in the world.

Suppose the lot of us here on the forums decided that we would no longer take each other to court if we ever had to, that we would instead try to work it out here, and if we couldn't get to an agreement, we'd let Steve decide. Ultimately, as there would be more and more of us, we would be forming in essence our own court system. We would almost always prefer to deal within that court system, offering it to outsiders if they wished, and tending to do riskier business deals with those already in the system.

It's not some sudden, gut wrenching revolution. Simply, over time, people who are more conscious will separate from different parts of society. Not from society as a whole, mind you, but from the parts we can't abide because they rely on force, or fear, or stupidity, or greed. And always, inviting others to join us.

This not only propogates itself, helping more people become more aware, but as it does, it renders the existing institutions less and less relevant, and less and less powerful. I doubt that government would ever be overthrown, more like it would fade away as people needed it less and less, until some final impetus kicks it into the dustbin of history.

Not that I'm an optimist or anything...

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Thread was begun here, but I think Keith's right about splitting it off. I don't think that even moderators can branch a thread like that, though, so I'm just making a new one and linking back.

My understanding of the current positions:
KevinG believes that it is impossible to move towards an anarchistic "utopia" from where we are now.

Keith believes that a Consciousness Revolution will result in an anarchistic society comprised of "aware and conscious" people, doing away with any need for government.

Here's my take.

What is government? Why does it exist?

I believe the current theory of anthropology (no sources; just memory) is that government arose somewhere during the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to agrarian societies. Government is the practice of placing upon a subset of a society the responsibility to maintain the stability of that society. Its role, therefore, is primarily one of mediation, whether internal to the society or external, with another society. Today, we substitute the word "society" with "nation", and it makes as much sense.

Lao-tzu may have written about codes of morality and justice, but that is not entirely what laws are. Laws are statements of agreement. It might be as simple as saying, "George will do the laundry every Friday." I'm not convinced that even a society comprised completely of aware and conscious individuals would be capable of functioning without such agreement.

Once you add laws to a society, you no longer have your standard anarchy. This doesn't mean you have a government, though, so perhaps you can still call it an anarchy. I would call it a democracy; a direct democracy. A rule completely by all the people. This is, ultimately, not scalable. So either you split apart into separate societies, or you begin adding representatives to do the heavy lifting for you, i.e. government.

So scale is the first problem of anarchy, and it's not one that I think can be addressed by the consciousness of its citizens.

The second problem is the one KevinG brought up, and it's the fact that despite the drastic increase in conscious people, I think they are still very much a minority in the world. What, really, is the likelihood that anyone could bring them all together? Wouldn't their instinct to help others more likely spread them out? Sure, they'd band together to achieve things, but it's so that they can reach a larger population, not for any internal reasons of forming a separate society. To withdraw from the world is, in many ways, very selfish.

Hi Michael

For a great education on the pro's and cons of goverment I would suggest, to the interested, that they add these titles to their library.

Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes
Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince
John Locke - Second Treatise on Civil Government
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Discourse on Political Economy
K. Marx, F. Engels - The German Ideology
John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
John Stuart Mill - The Subjection of Women

I read all of these during my Philosophy degree. Incredible thinkers.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Thread was begun here, but I think Keith's right about splitting it off. I don't think that even moderators can branch a thread like that, though, so I'm just making a new one and linking back.

My understanding of the current positions:
KevinG believes that it is impossible to move towards an anarchistic "utopia" from where we are now.

Keith believes that a Consciousness Revolution will result in an anarchistic society comprised of "aware and conscious" people, doing away with any need for government.

Here's my take.

What is government? Why does it exist?

I believe the current theory of anthropology (no sources; just memory) is that government arose somewhere during the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to agrarian societies. Government is the practice of placing upon a subset of a society the responsibility to maintain the stability of that society. Its role, therefore, is primarily one of mediation, whether internal to the society or external, with another society. Today, we substitute the word "society" with "nation", and it makes as much sense.

Lao-tzu may have written about codes of morality and justice, but that is not entirely what laws are. Laws are statements of agreement. It might be as simple as saying, "George will do the laundry every Friday." I'm not convinced that even a society comprised completely of aware and conscious individuals would be capable of functioning without such agreement.

Once you add laws to a society, you no longer have your standard anarchy. This doesn't mean you have a government, though, so perhaps you can still call it an anarchy. I would call it a democracy; a direct democracy. A rule completely by all the people. This is, ultimately, not scalable. So either you split apart into separate societies, or you begin adding representatives to do the heavy lifting for you, i.e. government.

So scale is the first problem of anarchy, and it's not one that I think can be addressed by the consciousness of its citizens.

The second problem is the one KevinG brought up, and it's the fact that despite the drastic increase in conscious people, I think they are still very much a minority in the world. What, really, is the likelihood that anyone could bring them all together? Wouldn't their instinct to help others more likely spread them out? Sure, they'd band together to achieve things, but it's so that they can reach a larger population, not for any internal reasons of forming a separate society. To withdraw from the world is, in many ways, very selfish.

Not to mention the fact that it was "aware and conscious" people who formed the United States of America, the greatest democracy to ever exist.

When "aware and conscious" people make a decision as they did, how do you answer that anarchy would work perfect amongst the "aware and conscious?" Already, aware and conscious people are disagreeing with each other, or forming what we call, political parties.

I'm sure you see where this is going.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by KevinG

Not to mention the fact that it was "aware and conscious" people who formed the United States of America, the greatest democracy to ever exist.

I believe, Kevin, that that statement might be disputed by more than a few people.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Thread was begun here, but I think Keith's right about splitting it off. I don't think that even moderators can branch a thread like that, though, so I'm just making a new one and linking back.

It's possible with phpBB. Vbulletin seems more fully featured, so it's probably possible.

I would not say that an Anarchic society such as I envision is infeasible or inevitable. I do believe it's possible.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Lao-tzu may have written about codes of morality and justice, but that is not entirely what laws are. Laws are statements of agreement. It might be as simple as saying, "George will do the laundry every Friday." I'm not convinced that even a society comprised completely of aware and conscious individuals would be capable of functioning without such agreement.

The difference is that law is proscriptive. Certainly two responsible, Conscious individuals could enter into an agreement in the sort of society I envision. The difference is that there isn't a 3rd party standing over them to enforce the agreement. This idea is kind of terrifying, and that's because we're used to dealing with irresponsible people. We've forgotten what it's like to live in a community of fundamentally decent people. When agreements sometimes fail (as they do now), the parties involved will resolve it like adults.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So scale is the first problem of anarchy, and it's not one that I think can be addressed by the consciousness of its citizens.

I actually envision that some of the issues of a successful Anarchy cannot be solved at our current level of thinking. These issues would have to be addressed 'on the ground' by more Conscious individuals than I. ie. I probably can't even envision the solutions the populace would come up with.

For me, at my level of Consciousness, I think the key phrase is 'paternalistic leadership'. Certainly an Anarchy would still need people to serve as Coordinators for big projects, but this needn't be a leadership role as we understand the term ; the Coordinator would just be a person doing their job, the same as everyone else, not a class apart.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The second problem is the one KevinG brought up, and it's the fact that despite the drastic increase in conscious people, I think they are still very much a minority in the world. What, really, is the likelihood that anyone could bring them all together? Wouldn't their instinct to help others more likely spread them out? Sure, they'd band together to achieve things, but it's so that they can reach a larger population, not for any internal reasons of forming a separate society. To withdraw from the world is, in many ways, very selfish.

Very good question/point, Michael. (Stop doing that! )

Assuming a successful outcome, I see it going one of two ways:
(1) A bunch of Conscious people 'break off' and form their own society (note: it doesn't have to be all of them); or
(2) The number of Conscious people in an existing society grow until they become the majority.

In practice both would probably occur; If #1 happens first, some members of the society will inevitably leave to join a more 'mainstream' society ; thus increasing saturation. Conversely, as #2 approaches saturation, the likelihood that a number of them will want to form their own community (for their own benefit and to work on larger scale projects) will increase.

This answers your comment re: selfishness: a society of Conscious people could form precisely because it has greater potential to solve world problems in never-before-seen ways. And I can't envision such a group of people not wanting to share the fruits of their labours (though, like Steve, they would probably seek some reimbursement to help the society continue and grow).

The big advantage to #2, is that with #1, you always have to factor in a "lowest common denominator" mentality; ie. your plans always have to factor in "what if someone does something irresponsible?". (This will occasionally happen in a (primarily) Conscious society too, of course, but as an occasional exception rather than a general rule - the common denominator is high rather than low).

The big disadvantage of #2 is that such a society becomes 'them' rather than 'us', which is always dangerous.

BTW, I note that what Steve has started here is similar to #2. There are differences; it's open to all, many of us aren't highly Conscious, and it overlaps contemporary society rather than replacing it or standing alongside it. But it is suggestive that Conscious people like to form likeminded societies.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I believe, Kevin, that that statement might be disputed by more than a few people.

Yup.

Personally, I suspect Australia of 20 years ago might have been the greatest democracy to exist (but I grew up then and there so I may be biased. ). People tended to be more compassionate and invested in things of obvious public good like universal health care and education. Over the last 20 years things have become much more "me, me, me!" and I don't think it's an improvement.

Re: Democracy, one thing that people (except the politicians) frequently forget is that it only works well when you have a responsible, informed populace. When you have people that are generally (a) too time-pressed and exhausted from working their 2-3 jobs to study the issue, (b) informed primarily by a media that is interested in popularity (ie. ratings) rather than informing and (c) are so mired in basic survival needs they have difficulty becoming Conscious and responsible, then Democracy tends to break.

(Hmm, maybe that bit should be back in the original thread).

Originally Posted by KevinG

When "aware and conscious" people make a decision as they did, how do you answer that anarchy would work perfect amongst the "aware and conscious?" Already, aware and conscious people are disagreeing with each other, or forming what we call, political parties. I'm sure you see where this is going.

The US Founding Fathers did the best they could to found the best nation possible with the resources they had available. The Founding Fathers may have been Conscious and aware, but they established guiding principles for the nation because they knew that the majority of the populace was not (This is not an indictment, BTW ; in that time, as in ours, the highly Conscious people were generally those who could afford to be).

It all boils back to my original point ; an optimal nation needs to be composed of primarily Conscious and Aware people. Any less, and you get in the situation where (a) you need to tell people to act in a Conscious and Aware way, (b) you need to enforce that they do and (c) they rebel against your enforcement.

Ultimately the quality and culture of a nation is that of the citizens who compose it.

[KevinG]

Exactly my point.

You will never have a nation of conscious and aware people - you'll never have a nation with greater than 50% of the people conscious and aware.

And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in? We have the largest rate of applied citizenship in the world, and the least amount of people trying to leave.

[KevinG]

Exactly my point.

You will never have a nation of conscious and aware people - you'll never have a nation with greater than 50% of the people conscious and aware.

And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in? We have the largest rate of applied citizenship in the world, and the least amount of people trying to leave.

If you are electing based off the popular vote I'm fairly sure we've won hands down.

[Keith]

To address Kevin's post from the other thread:

Originally Posted by KevinG

I appreciate your detailed explanation. Unfortunately, you haven't told me how you are going to create an entire society that is "awake and conscious?"

Until you do, I'm afraid your argument doesn't carry much weight. It is easy to say "if everything works perfectly then my plan will work perfectly." Well of course, but how do you logically expect everything to work perfectly?

I don't expect everything to work perfectly - just vastly better.

Let's take an analogy. There are drops of water scattered all around the inside surface of a bowl. I say to you "I don't think that these droplets will remain isolated - I think they'll come together to form a body of water at the bottom of the bowl, far more unified than the individual droplets that compose it". You say "How are you going to make that happen?". I look a bit confused and say "I don't have to make it happen. That result will just emerge naturally from the situation".

Similarly, it's self-evident to me that, if you form a society of Conscious and Aware people, that many of the problems of our society will just vanish (and many others will be solved in ways I can't anticipate). But (to steal an analogy of Steve's) this is 'blue' - I can point you at it, but if you're wearing red lenses you won't (and can't!) see it. I certainly can't describe 'blue'. All I can do is to ask you to put down the red lenses for a moment and take another look.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by JohnLong

Government has a few more features than what you've described. The big one is that a government will not let anyone compete with it or withdraw from it, at least in the geographical area it has claimed for itself. It's based on force and coercion, and if we think such things are bad, how can we think government can be good?

I don't think that's true. You're assuming, first of all, that a government is always over a nation, and furthermore, that it's a nation with a geographical presence. This is not always true. From micronations to virtual world governance to more well-known things like student clubs and organizations, businesses, municipalities, counties, states, and so forth. These are all forms of government: small groups of people charged with the stability of their own societies.

Nations achieve sovereignity by Weber's definition: A sovereign state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. Ergo, the national military. The military, or "force and coercion" as you call it, is the final arbiter of mediation a government may use to enforce reached agreement. You may or may not disagree with Abraham Lincoln's refusal to acknowledge the South's secession; we might wonder, today: wouldn't it be easier if that entire swath wasn't the responsibility of the U.S. and didn't vote? Or would we have problems similar to Israel, sitting right on our borders? Who can be sure about that "what-if"?

The usage of force and coercion is not a necessary feature of government; it is merely a typical one. If we consider force and coercion to be a bad thing, then we may state that governments that use it are bad governments, but it does not, by itself, invalidate the concept of government at all.

Originally Posted by JohnLong

Ultimately, as there would be more and more of us, we would be forming in essence our own court system.

That's just the thing. A court system is a system of governance. You are charging a subset of your society (in this case, Steve) with the stability of the society (threatened by our disagreements). A meritocracy (government by the deserving, as I understand it) is still a government. You are, in fact, describing the pre-Saul government of Israel, typified in the Book of Judges.

Originally Posted by Keith

I actually envision that some of the issues of a successful Anarchy cannot be solved at our current level of thinking.

Hrm... that's a great thought, but I wonder whether or not you're giving too much credit to conscious individuals. It's not terribly arguable, either way, though.

Originally Posted by KevinG

And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in? We have the largest rate of applied citizenship in the world, and the least amount of people trying to leave.

Ehm. It isn't because we have the highest GDP growth in the world? I guess if you define the greatness of a country by how many people are trying to get in, sure the United States is the greatest.

[Keith]

KevinG, I think you accidentally quoted rather than editing.

Originally Posted by KevinG

Exactly my point.
You will never have a nation of conscious and aware people - you'll never have a nation with greater than 50% of the people conscious and aware.

And why not? The number of conscious and aware people certainly appears to be growing rapidly (probably due to improvement in communication technologies ; Steve's blog alone has probably raised the consciousness of thousands of people).

Originally Posted by KevinG

And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in? We have the largest rate of applied citizenship in the world, and the least amount of people trying to leave.

Most popular != greatest. Greatest is kind of hard to define, but I'd say things like level of fulfilment in the populace, crime rates, etc. need to be factored in. eg. For "the Greatest nation in the world" the level of poverty and crime in America is horrifying (Perhaps this is a barrier to you envisioning that a better society could possibly work?).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hrm... that's a great thought, but I wonder whether or not you're giving too much credit to conscious individuals. It's not terribly arguable, either way, though.

I'm arguing this because it's an interesting discussion, because I believe it, and because I'd like other people to consider the possibility. But, regardless of how much discussion occurs, ultimately either it'll happen (in some form or other) or it won't.

Historically, people often held compeletely rational and seemingly self-evident beliefs that turned out to be completely wrong ("Of course the sun orbits the Earth - just look at it!").

Kevin thinks that it's self-evident that society will collapse into chaos without rulers and laws - I mean just look at people.

I think that, it's self-evident that a society of Conscious people would not suffer many of our problems (and the need for a government to keep those problems in check) - I mean just look at people like Steve.

Both positions seem rational and self-evident, and either (or both) of them could turn out to be completely wrong. Methinks some "Ready, Fire, Aim" is called for...

[Brutha]

And if the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth why is everyone trying to get in?

The word country is diffrent from Democraty. A majority voting system is just bad. It makes it very difficult for new partys to emerge.

In addition most people on earth are not trying to get into the US. Sure some do but most live within their own country and doN't want to move away from it.

Can you really envision an empathic, self-responsible, emotionally-stable person with good esteem and strong ties to the community (whose survival meeds are all met) becoming a career criminal?

Do you define someone like Julius Caesar as a criminal? Or someone like Napoleon.

Commited people who can hold private armys are a problem.

In addition I don't see any problem with such kind of population being ruled democratily or even by a Oligarchie (Platos Republik for example).
If the leaders are people from those conscious aware people, they do what the citizen want and everyone is happy.

Even a community like wikipedia that looks from the outside like an example of working Anarchy isn't an Anarchy. It has some kind of an Democraty/Aristocraty/Monarchy

BTW, I note that what Steve has started here is similar to #2. There are differences; it's open to all, many of us aren't highly Conscious, and it overlaps contemporary society rather than replacing it or standing alongside it. But it is suggestive that Conscious people like to form likeminded societies.

But this community is no Anarchy. It is has moderators and Steve who rules over the moderators.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Do you define someone like Julius Caesar as a criminal? Or someone like Napoleon.
Commited people who can hold private armys are a problem.

Of course technically they weren't criminals since they created the laws.

But I wouldn't view Napoleon and Julius Caesar as Conscious and Aware individuals. See here for a good definition of Conscious and Aware. Napoleon and Julius were master tactitians, and no doubt very intelligent, and driven, but their actions don't demonstrate a whole lot of empathy and compassion.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In addition I don't see any problem with such kind of population being ruled democratily or even by a Oligarchie (Platos Republik for example).
If the leaders are people from those conscious aware people, they do what the citizens want and everyone is happy.

It's not necessarily a problem, but any sort of paternal rulership is redundant when you're dealing with a community of responsible adults.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even a community like wikipedia that looks from the outside like an example of working Anarchy isn't an Anarchy. It has some kind of an Democraty/Aristocraty/Monarchy
This community is no Anarchy. It is has moderators and Steve who rules over the moderators.

Very true. This forum is similar in basic concept (get a whole bunch of conscious people together so they can help each other grow) but it's politically quite different to the sort of society I'm talking about. As the forum is open to less-than-fully-conscious people like me, some rules are probably necessary at this point.

P.S. See this post for an example of a Conscious and Aware state of mind. Can you really envision a lot of criminals in a society where people feel like that?

[Brutha]

P.S. See this post for an example of a Conscious and Aware state of mind. Can you really envision a lot of criminals in a society where people feel like that?

The point is that every member of the society has to be in that state.
One member who wants to destroy it can do it.

Some mental illnesses are caused by some chemical problem in the brain, so there are people how create problems.

It's not necessarily a problem, but any sort of paternal rulership is redundant when you're dealing with a community of responsible adults.

Lets say people in City A don't realy like that people from City B drive through City A to get to City C.

So people from City A want to have a Speedlimit in their city. That reduces the noise of the cars and encourages the people from City B to drive around City A.

City A has no leadership that could talk to the leadership from city B because both have no one who is in charge to negotiate with each other.
So every person from City A and every person from City B has to come together to settle the disput.

If City A would have a mayor and City B would also have a mayor both mayors could come together and settle the dispute like responsible adults.

But in an Anarchy the don't have a mayor that could do something like this.
So even in the case of 100 percent responsible adults the community can benefit from electing a mayor.

[Scott H Young]

This is a very interesting discussion.

My take:

1) Being aware and conscious isn't a simple on/off switch. Frankly the kinds of people who could run a society like you've mentioned would have to transcend to a far higher level than the people on this board and even Steve. I don't think that what we currently call human beings are capable of such a transition. Perhaps in the future our society might be interconnected to the point where such a transition is possible.

2) What's with the consciousness elitism? Frankly you are starting to sound like a bad religion. Simply declaring yourself 'conscious' and that you read Steve Pavlina doesn't make you superior to your fellow human beings. You have a different way of viewing the world, that's for sure, but don't use this as evidence that you are better. Better is subjective anyways.

3) Let's agree on two things. Currently a system without government isn't feasible. In the future such a system may work if people and human nature evolves considerably.