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.

[Kiba]

Complete freedom is complete slavery especially if you can do anything and doing anything. There must be a social norm or a society. Anarchry just won't cut it.

Therefore you need a government to ensure freedom for everyone and protect everyone.

But government is often the enemy of freedom. Example is the fear of terrorists leading to bad law that violate citizen's rights.

But without government, anybody can do whatever they want, even kill. Therefore you need a government to keep orders.

That is my opinion of course.

[Keith]

Very quick post (I may edit it later):

Originally Posted by Brutha

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.

I strongly disagree. Conscious and Aware people are spectacular problem-solvers. I don't know exactly what their solutions would be (they'd probably vary case-by-case anyway) but I imagine they'd be both compassionate and effective.

The idea is not that everyone would be perfect ; the idea is that the majority would be exceptional and empathic enough to uplift, or otherwise assist, those who aren't quite at that level. But given that caring and responsible childrearing is a natural consequence of a community of Conscious people, malcontents should be an exceptionally small minority.

Originally Posted by Brutha

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

Certainly. And I would envision mental health being a much more prominent focus in a Conscious and Aware society. Both treatment and prevention of mental illness would be first-rate (probably better than the current first-rate approach) ; this is exactly the sort of field that compassionate, driven individuals would seek to work in.

Edit1:

Originally Posted by Scott H Young

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.

If you read back over my posts, you'll see that I've noted a couple of times that I don't include myself in the group of Conscious and Aware people - and have explicitly stated otherwise a couple of times.

For purposes of this discussion, "better" (not that I recall using that term) would translate to "resulting in a more efficient, effective and fulfilled society".

And it's not a religion, it's a philosophy. :P

I have to go, but I'll respond to your other points later.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Scott H Young

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.

I seem to be paying less and less attention in the past few days, but I wanted to say that I agree with those two things. (Off-topic: My distract-ability is probably the top indicator of my low level of consciousness. )

Originally Posted by Kiba

But without government, anybody can do whatever they want, even kill. Therefore you need a government to keep orders.

The problem with this perspective is that it's fear-based. You need a government because you're afraid bad things would happen otherwise. Keith is proposing a society where no one wants to do anything we'd consider bad, and would only do things we'd consider good.

The thing is, in my opinion, even in such a society, I think there would still be disagreements and cross-purposes. And for that, you either need the two parties to agree, which requires some serious communication, or you need mediation. Communication doesn't scale (unless our "technology" for doing so grows by the leaps and bounds I hope it does), but mediation does. The mediation eventually scales into government. And that's why anarchy shouldn't/won't happen: you eventually need government when it gets large enough.

I'm sure Keith has a response.

[KevinG]

I'm stepping out of this quietly.

I can't spend anymore time forming legitimate opinions just to get responded to by those whose ideologies could only exist in an impossible utopia.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Keith

I strongly disagree. Conscious and Aware people are spectacular problem-solvers. I don't know exactly what their solutions would be (they'd probably vary case-by-case anyway) but I imagine they'd be both compassionate and effective.

A group of good problem solvers can't match someone like Ceaser who has an armed force and can simply kill them.

The problem with this perspective is that it's fear-based. You need a government because you're afraid bad things would happen otherwise.

If someone quits smoking because he doesn't want to die to cancer that might be a fear based decision. But that doesn't make it bad decision.

[Keith]

Instead of giving a fractured point-by-point reply, I'm going to give a wholistic response that hopefully addresses everyone:

My (assumptions/)'ideology' is basically just this:

* When people's needs (survival, security & emotional development) are met (aka they are "Conscious") then they will generally be decent and helpful to one another and will pursue mutually beneficial goals. (Steve = Poster child). Deliberately antisocial behaviour is almost always founded in one of these unmet needs.
* The primary purpose of Government is to be the final authority. It generally fulfils other functions too, but that's the one that definitively makes a body a government.
* To a large extent, people feel the need for a final authority because they don't trust the people around them to act decently. (Yet they assume the final authority will).
* Attempting to create decent behaviour through mandate and use of force is ultimately ineffective as (a) compliance may require a stage of development that people haven't reached and (b) it inspires people to challenge authority and 'game the system'. (There are enforced laws against murder and speeding; how effective has that been at preventing them?).
* A focus on supporting people to reach the stage of development where they want to be decent to each other will be considerably more effective.
* If you give people the freedom to do anything they want, then it's important that you have people who want to be benevolent.
* Perfection is not possible: there will always be antisocial people, but a society of primarily Conscious people will deal with this in a compassionate and practical way rather than addressing the issue in a fear-based way[1].
* Conscious people will tend to 'spread' benevolence and consciousness through support and inspiration, and also through a focus on raising Conscious children. (vide Steve again ).
* Such a society would also focus strongly on developing areas of improvement such as education, physical & mental health care, communication and collaboration technologies, automation technologies etc.
* The majority in a society tends to maintain itself through peer pressure. (Therefore not all people in a society need be Conscious for Consciousness to remain dominant).

Those are the general principles. Onto more specific 'implementation' issues:

* Even in such a society of Conscious people there would still be disagreements and cross-purposes. Generally people will come to agreements on their own, but sometimes assistance from an expert mediator may be called for. The mediator would jointly be the employee of the disputing parties (rather than an adjudicator who could impose fiat judgments) and would work with both parties to seek a "win-win or no deal" solution. (Brutha, in your example I suggest concerned individuals on all sides get together and improve the bypass road so City B doesn't need to shortcut through City A).

* No externally imposed law doesn't mean no social convention. eg. Driving speeds will be governed by shared example, common sense and mutual concern rather than law. (Again, note that pretty much everyone exceeds the legal limit when it is mandated.

* An agressive organised militant force should never arise within such a society because (a) everyone should be at least reasonably happy with the status quo, (b) individuals who were unhappy (and why would you form an army if you were happy!?) would be noticed and supported to become happy. An aggressive organised force from outside the society could certainly be a problem. Ultimately you would hope to 'uplift' all surrounding societies too, but in the interim it may be necessary to seek protection by other nations in exchange for goods and services.


To be honest, I'm not sure this ideology is, in fact, called "Anarchy" - that may be throwing some people off?

Some people in this thread believe people aren't capable of such a society in the near future. Some believe people aren't capable of it at all. I really hope both groups are wrong. Our current societies are destroying the world at such a rate that I suspect we have mere decades before it's too late.


[1] Yes, fear can sometimes result in good outcomes such as quitting smoking. However, even in these rare cases, the same outcomes will come from making a Conscious, motivated decision; and a Conscious, motivated decision won't carry all the negative side-effects of a fear-based one like stress, over-simplification of issues, inability to make reasoned judgements etc.

In fact, people are often having trouble quitting smoking because of fear (not to downplay the physical addiction): "What if I'm not strong enough to get by without my smokes!?", "What if my smoking friends no longer want to hang with me?", etc. Sure, you can (maybe) overcome that fear with a larger burst of fear ("If I don't quit, I'll die!!") but then you're setting up a neverending internal battle. As soon as one set of fears looks like dominating, the other will panic and return with renewed vigor.

Finally, what looks like a fear-based decision, may not be ; "I don't want to die!" is a very different motivation to "I want to live!". I suspect the latter would be far more effective in the long term because it's a "running towards" goal rather than a "running away" one...

[Brien]

Originally Posted by KevinG

I'm stepping out of this quietly.

I can't spend anymore time forming legitimate opinions just to get responded to by those whose ideologies could only exist in an impossible utopia.

Originally Posted by KevinG

Careful my friend, you are walking a fine line between making your point and attacking other people's point of view personally.

Just some of your own advice.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A group of good problem solvers can't match someone like Ceaser who has an armed force and can simply kill them.

Why not? What if this spectacular group of problem-solvers determined a brilliant method for constructing forcefield that prevented this warband from entering their sanctuary? Wouldn't that be considered "matching" them?

The warband is a problem. Why can't it be solved?

Originally Posted by Brutha

If someone quits smoking because he doesn't want to die to cancer that might be a fear based decision. But that doesn't make it bad decision.

Certainly, a fear-based decision is not necessarily a bad decision. But neither is it necessarily a good decision. A more proper reason to quit smoking is so that you are therefore more capable to live your life powerfully and through that, help other people.

Which would you rather have? A former smoker who now shirks from train cars and power lines because they might cause cancer, too? Who visits the doctor monthly anticipating that he'll have lung cancer anyways? Or a former smoker who instead works as a singer or orator, motivating other people to do greater things?

Fear tends towards shutting out one's neighbor. America, the nation of locked doors: greatest in the world, yes?

P.S. *chuckles* I didn't read Keith's post until after I wrote this. I'll leave it, though.

Originally Posted by Keith

The mediator would jointly be the employee of the disputing parties (rather than an adjudicator who could impose fiat judgments) and would work with both parties to seek a "win-win or no deal" solution.

Certainly, a win/win solution is surely desired, and I am sure that conscious people (your definition is a poor one, but I'll instead go by Steve's description ) would seek that in any case. It is thus the extreme scenarios I wish to contend, which would result in a "no deal", as you call it, you would have disagreements which an adjucator incapable of handing down a fiat judgement could not do anything about.

Furthermore, your solution to the City A versus City B problem is still a direct or representative democracy, not an anarchy, which is, like many atypical constructs of theory, decidedly elusive.

As you say, perfection is not possible. Neither is a government a perfect solution; but it is a solution. At least the government could be resented as a faceless entity.

I should note that I do agree with you, Keith, all the way up to the point where you say government is thus abolished. Which is why that's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

P.S. *chuckles* I didn't read Keith's post until after I wrote this. I'll leave it, though.

Great minds... (and mine ).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Certainly, a win/win solution is surely desired, and I am sure that conscious people (your definition is a poor one, but I'll instead go by Steve's description ) would seek that in any case. It is thus the extreme scenarios I wish to contend, which would result in a "no deal", as you call it, you would have disagreements which an adjucator incapable of handing down a fiat judgement could not do anything about.

Governments sometimes don't achieve a win-win either. In fact, generally they don't even aim for a win-win. They generally resolve things decisively - especially when that's not the best option.

Any approach will fail sometimes. I believe mediation (as described) would succeed in achieving more successful outcomes for more people - and leaving people happier about it - than arbitration (which is almost guaranteed to leave one of the two parties unhappy).

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Furthermore, your solution to the City A versus City B problem is still a direct or representative democracy, not an anarchy, which is, like many atypical constructs of theory, decidedly elusive.

In what way is it a democracy? The individuals involved aren't representing anyone - they're just seeing a problem that needs to be solved and getting together to solve it.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

As you say, perfection is not possible. Neither is a government a perfect solution; but it is a solution. At least the government could be resented as a faceless entity.

Though Government may be one possible solution to some issues, I would suggest that it is a far greater problem to a greater number of issues. (I don't really want to drill down too deeply into this, but the Government acting from self-interest against the wishes of the people is kind of a biggie).

I'm reminded of Steve's How to get from a 7 to a 10. Government is the 7, and we have to drop back and approach the issue in a new way to reach a 10. And like in Steve's article, I suspect we'll then realise that the "7" was really a "3".

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I should note that I do agree with you, Keith, all the way up to the point where you say government is thus abolished. Which is why that's the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about.

Personally, I expect that a Conscious society will eliminate the need for government as we know it. We can split hairs over specific possibilities and whether they genuinely constitute an Anarchy. But really, the important bit (to me at least) is that a society consisting predominantly of Conscious people should fall into an "Adult-to-Adult" model of interaction rather than a "Parent-to-Child" one. I can speculate about what form it takes, but the far more important thing is that it happens.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Keith

In what way is it a democracy? The individuals involved aren't representing anyone - they're just seeing a problem that needs to be solved and getting together to solve it.

Democracy means "government by the people". A direct democracy is where the people themselves cast votes on policy decisions. In the United States, we have a representative democracy, where our votes are most commonly known to be cast in favor of candidates to particular public offices.

When you agree by a voting mechanism to commit to an action, I think that that is democracy. Though, in retrospect, the scenario you are describing... you might be right that it's anarchic. I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure.

[Brutha]

Governments sometimes don't achieve a win-win either. In fact, generally they don't even aim for a win-win. They generally resolve things decisively - especially when that's not the best option.

We are talking about a population in which there are enough very intelligent, conscious and aware people available for goverment functions that are able to achieve win-wins.
If you think those conscious and aware people aren't capable of making win-wins your whole argument is dead.

Though Government may be one possible solution to some issues, I would suggest that it is a far greater problem to a greater number of issues. (I don't really want to drill down too deeply into this, but the Government acting from self-interest against the wishes of the people is kind of a biggie).

You suppose a society where they are conscious and aware people. Why should a goverment of those people act against the wishes of the people?

(Brutha, in your example I suggest concerned individuals on all sides get together and improve the bypass road so City B doesn't need to shortcut through City A).

How do those people make the decision to come together? Who organises it?

Wouldn't it be more efficent if someone in City A and someone in City B had the job to organise those things. (That job is classically called mayor)

Let take a large-scale example, genetic manipulated plants.
The benifits of having better plants that have more vitamins and need fewer growing time mean that someone will want to do this in your society. Those scientists who want to do this will thing that the benifits are greater than they are in reality and that the risk aren't as big as they are because the belief in the idea of genetic manipulated plants.

Because other people fear that the risk genetic manipulated plants is greater than the benifits it provides.
How does your society decides the issure? What process is used to make that decision?

Their are a lot of similar question where there is a risk for the whole society but a big gain for the one who does it.

I don't think that the one who grows the genetic manipulated plants is the best to ensure that the risk is balanced against the gain.
It is better when there is a goverment who decides (by some progress) what is appropriate.

Why not? What if this spectacular group of problem-solvers determined a brilliant method for constructing forcefield that prevented this warband from entering their sanctuary? Wouldn't that be considered "matching" them?

The warband is a problem. Why can't it be solved?

If this spectacular group of problem solvers come together and build a force that can combat the aggressor they form a state in the process of doing so.
Maybe they win, but Anarchy is over anyway. That like "Cutting basic human rights to defend them" it doesn't work on a principle reason.

The other problem is that the aggressor can prepare for it and gather ressources. When he declares war their isn't much time anymore to build a defense.
But if you build your defense before their is aggresson that exactly building a state.

(and why would you form an army if you were happy!?)

Being I King could be kind of fun, so even when you are happy you may want to become one.

But really, the important bit (to me at least) is that a society consisting predominantly of Conscious people should fall into an "Adult-to-Adult" model of interaction rather than a "Parent-to-Child" one.

Their aren't only individual to individual relationships.
Their are also group to group relationships.

[Keith]

Brutha, I'm going to give my personal answers to your comments later, but let's try something a bit different in the interim.

Instead of falling into the trap of the adversarial model, let's all try to resolve the issues you've thrown up.

Einstein reckoned that problems can't be solved at the level of thought at which they were created. Let's all see if we can come up with the higher level answers to Brutha's questions (and yes, that includes you, Brutha - can you solve the problems that you raised? ).

Let's consider this a mental exercise to practice our own inner Consciousness.

[JohnLong]

I agree we should avoid the adversarial approach here. It encourages our ego's to get wrapped up in our positions and our beliefs, which makes increasing our understanding that much more difficult.

Let me try and explain why this matters to me, and how I can or can't see things changing.

The bottom line to me is that the state based solution HAS to be based on not allowing people to simply leave everyone else alone, and not allowing any other organization to compete. I just can't see how that is any sort of enlightened way of approaching the world. We may not be able to see exactly what an alternative might be, but it seems clear to me that there are serious moral problems with the way states work. If we know what we have is wrong, we look for other alternatives. We may not know what they exactly are in advance, but we can move in that direction immediately, and figure out the details later.

We move in that direction by increasing the awareness of the population in general. We help individuals in corporations, government positions, jobs, small businesses, churches, political parties, etc. think at a higher level, imaging the future and what it could be rather than just the immediate needs, the next quarters results, and the next paycheck. How to do that is a much bigger topic ; it is the central topic and focus of Steve's entire site.

Where do we end up? Who knows, exactly? There are theories from all over the place, from the more conventional Anarchists (there's an oxymoron!) who believe property and government must both be done away with, to the newer market anarchy theories, to everything in between. We'll get a better feeling as we get further along. We can discuss it now, but we CAN'T let our inability to imagine how the world might change stop us from trying.

I've got some of my own imaginings, if you're interested. But first I wanted to try and change how we're looking at this, at least a little.

[Brutha]

Instead of falling into the trap of the adversarial model, let's all try to resolve the issues you've thrown up.

Einstein reckoned that problems can't be solved at the level of thought at which they were created. Let's all see if we can come up with the higher level answers to Brutha's questions (and yes, that includes you, Brutha - can you solve the problems that you raised? ).

That reminds me Engels trying to resolve Marx problem of the price of labor, be writing making a contest out of the problem.
The moral of the story is that it didn't work, the problem stayed unsolved.

The bottom line to me is that the state based solution HAS to be based on not allowing people to simply leave everyone else alone, and not allowing any other organization to compete. I just can't see how that is any sort of enlightened way of approaching the world.

I can't see how it is an enlightened way of approaching the world to compete with each other.
So that basically what enlighted being do? Compete with each other?

As long as the person who leaves everyone else alone doesn't do anything to harm the other citizen like driven through their city (to stay with that example) the state can allow the individual to leave everyone else alone.
You don't need direct taxes to finance your state if your population of "conscious and aware" people spends enough money for the state to run.

JohnLong:
I've got some of my own imaginings, if you're interested. But first I wanted to try and change how we're looking at this, at least a little.

Feel free to start your own thread about that question of how to get to improve the currect system like raising the amount of "conscious and aware" people. We do all agree that the current goverments are far from perfect.
This thread was about whether Anarchy is a good political system for a society of over 50% "conscious and aware" people.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That reminds me Engels trying to resolve Marx problem of the price of labor, be writing making a contest out of the problem.
The moral of the story is that it didn't work, the problem stayed unsolved.

I'm sure you're right, but that's a different situation.

You've helped us brainstorm what the problems are; why not at least attempt to brainstorm solutions instead of just assuming it won't work?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I can't see how it is an enlightened way of approaching the world to compete with each other.
So that basically what enlighted being do? Compete with each other?

[EDIT] Never mind - John just answered this far better than I. [/EDIT]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Feel free to start your own thread about that question of how to get to improve the currect system like raising the amount of "conscious and aware" people. We do all agree that the current goverments are far from perfect.

I think I'll do that. I think the word 'Anarchy' is distracting from the real issues in this thread... (don't use that as an excuse not to partake in the brainstorming though!)