1
   

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 01:18 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
I would like to add that the major cities and larger communities also have very small "sub-cultural" groups which act within the larger. Even more, these sub-cultures are broken up into smaller groups of cliques. Because of our need to be near water and a good food supply, have certain types of land for cultivating crops and enough rain fall to sustain a healthy, refreshed water supply, we have had to move into cities of larger population. This forced an evolution of sorts but still has not removed our small community habits as we still try to keep things small and close. I may know hundreds of people but I only spend my time, on average, with a small number of them.
Small tribes with personal contact and respect for its neighbours...we love the contact..we dont like obscurity thats why celebrity is so important for so many..
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 01:43 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
I would like to add that the major cities and larger communities also have very small "sub-cultural" groups which act within the larger. Even more, these sub-cultures are broken up into smaller groups of cliques. Because of our need to be near water and a good food supply, have certain types of land for cultivating crops and enough rain fall to sustain a healthy, refreshed water supply, we have had to move into cities of larger population. This forced an evolution of sorts but still has not removed our small community habits as we still try to keep things small and close. I may know hundreds of people but I only spend my time, on average, with a small number of them.


Yes. Khethil is correct in noting that humans have gathered in increasingly large social groups, but as you note there is constant observable rebellion against these trends.
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2008 05:48 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
In the words of Aristotle, "man is a political animal". It is human nature to seek society with others, and government by law is necessary in any sound society.

Naturally, someone will always in fact govern over the governed, and individual liberties will be sacrificed to some extent. Yet society and government have won out over anarchy throughout human history; the benefits outweigh the costs when you are a member of a good society.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 06:27 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
In the words of Aristotle, "man is a political animal". It is human nature to seek society with others, and government by law is necessary in any sound society.

Naturally, someone will always in fact govern over the governed, and individual liberties will be sacrificed to some extent. Yet society and government have won out over anarchy throughout human history; the benefits outweigh the costs when you are a member of a good society.


You make a lot of statements here, and its hard to refute them since there is little in the way of explanation.

I will concentrate on just a few:

Why is government by law necessary in any sound society? I will agree that some form of law is necessary but I don't agree with the assumption that it must be "government" law.

Examining the benefits and costs of anarchy and the state was one of my intentions in starting this thread, so why do the benefits outweigh the costs. What are the benefits? I can counter with costs.

Finally, society does not equate to government. Anarchists preach a particular social structure, namely one without rulers and hierarchy. So the anarchist will never disagree that man will seek society, he just denies the need of government to manage that society. Now, I assume that you aren't counting the first 200 millenia of human existence and with that in mind, why does the dominance of statist systems over the past 10,000 years imply anything about the future of the human race?
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 12:41 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Two things:

1. Anarchy is an idea to completely free society

2. Because Society is a collection of individuals, Social Freedom is unlikely.


But that doesnt mean Anarchy is Hard to accomplish. It is only hard to establish.

As for the problems people have with Anarchy. They need only to look at the idea and how it would reshape things that they dont want changed. thats the hard part. After this, then can you only see what anarchy could be about. Thats when you make a statement on your final conclusion.

Systems are only replaced out of short sight, and fear.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
Two things:

1. Anarchy is an idea to completely free society

2. Because Society is a collection of individuals, Social Freedom is unlikely.


But that doesnt mean Anarchy is Hard to accomplish. It is only hard to establish.

As for the problems people have with Anarchy. They need only to look at the idea and how it would reshape things that they dont want changed. thats the hard part. After this, then can you only see what anarchy could be about. Thats when you make a statement on your final conclusion.

Systems are only replaced out of short sight, and fear.



You have a good point in saying that it is not hard to accomplish, only to establish. It is an impossible task to establish because it would have to be global. But at the same time, I live as an anarchist everyday. I live in a place with rules, sure, but I choose which rules I wish to follow and which ones I don't according to the punishment that I would have to deal with. Anarchy does not state that there will be no consequences for your actions. It is quite the opposite actually. The consequences for your actions could be vastly more severe because your punishment would be handed out by someone else who was not regulated by anything other than the consequences of his actions. So how I live today is really no different from being in an anarchistic society. Even today, a man could freak out and shoot me without warning. It may even be safer in an anarchistic society in the sense that there would be much less stress from social obligations forcing people to lose it.
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 01:44 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
You have a good point in saying that it is not hard to accomplish, only to establish. It is an impossible task to establish because it would have to be global. But at the same time, I live as an anarchist everyday. I live in a place with rules, sure, but I choose which rules I wish to follow and which ones I don't according to the punishment that I would have to deal with. Anarchy does not state that there will be no consequences for your actions. It is quite the opposite actually. The consequences for your actions could be vastly more severe because your punishment would be handed out by someone else who was not regulated by anything other than the consequences of his actions. So how I live today is really no different from being in an anarchistic society. Even today, a man could freak out and shoot me without warning. It may even be safer in an anarchistic society in the sense that there would be much less stress from social obligations forcing people to lose it.


I also agree that an anarchistic society would help control, over-accomplishment, when someones sanity or peace is at stake. Most other structures tend to ignore the social repercussions of this "natural" feeling to one up someone. I think that anarchy addresses this in some ways, so it is a constant slap in the face of progress. I think im going of track, so ill leave it at that.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Nov, 2008 08:53 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
that is the problem, although anarchy is the one sure way to ensure that government control does not encroach on the rights of humans, our civilization is built off of one concept, ownership. Laws against theft in any way shape or form have been present in every culture and every religion in the world, even communist societies believe in state ownership of all things, and it is this contract that allows us to flourish togethr, because it allows us to make maleable and flexible territorial boundries, but boundries nonetheless. to quote the poem, good fences make good neighbors, and that is the concept behind ownership, established boundries. the anarchist, in his pursuit of freedom and justice, would do away with such santions, because it is the job of government to both protect these sanctions from those who would plunder that which they have neither created nor purchaced, and to limit such ownership to the extent that no human may own another human, it is from this basic exchange that all disputes and ordinances arrise, and it is this exchange that is the cornerstone of civilization
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 08:14 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
that is the problem, although anarchy is the one sure way to ensure that government control does not encroach on the rights of humans, our civilization is built off of one concept, ownership. Laws against theft in any way shape or form have been present in every culture and every religion in the world, even communist societies believe in state ownership of all things, and it is this contract that allows us to flourish togethr, because it allows us to make maleable and flexible territorial boundries, but boundries nonetheless. to quote the poem, good fences make good neighbors, and that is the concept behind ownership, established boundries. the anarchist, in his pursuit of freedom and justice, would do away with such santions, because it is the job of government to both protect these sanctions from those who would plunder that which they have neither created nor purchaced, and to limit such ownership to the extent that no human may own another human, it is from this basic exchange that all disputes and ordinances arrise, and it is this exchange that is the cornerstone of civilization


I disagree.

The private individual can protect his property and has done so in the past. In fact, when we consider the nature of an economy built upon a specialized division of labor, respect of property rights becomes materially beneficial to all, and while there may be aberrations, this will be recognized by most.

Foremost, we should not make the mistake to assume that government assumes the cost of protecting property. It is always the productive member of society, the worker and the risk taker, who assumes the costs of property protection, with government being a manner of socializing these costs. It is an irrevocable fact of government that these costs will never be distributed fairly, and one cannot look at the current system (or any of past times) and not determine that the use of government for redistributing these costs has been a method of enforcing economic stratification.

Bailout anyone?
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 08:34 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Bingo Brad.

This is simple logistics. If the government truly protected my property then why do I need to purchase insurance? Shouldn't the government pay for this? In all actuality, Anarchy would have rules. These rules would not be the same as you might think though. These rules would not be enforced by a government but rather by the people on a case by case basis. It is impossible for mankind to actually live indivisually and flourish but it is also impossible for us to reach our true potential while yeilding to systems of control which do not actually benefit everyone. We would have to live together. It would be necessary. We would have to look to our neighbors and help each other out. This wouldn't be such a bad thing in the long run because we would create reliable dependencies on other like us. We would naturally group together in a way which would bring similar people together for the purpose of survival and advancement. When a crime is committed in a society of this type, everyone knows about it and everyone is worried about it. Take a small town structure. If someone gets robbed, everyone knows about it. The next time the robber strikes, people are ready for them and the consequences can be dire. This is what would prevent crime such as robbery and murder and rape. Not the fear of a government so riddled with loop holes that anyone can escape but the fear of people who will do whatever they feel is necessary to maintain the peace and flow of their small society. I am far more afraid of a lynch mob than a court of law.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 10:00 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Even if we take a moral stance against vigilante violence, the power of shunning in enforcing contracts and property rights is enormous. Wealth is generated through labor and learning, the more specialized one's labor is (the more one can offer a uniquely beneficial service or product), the more wealth one can bring in. This creates a division of labor where everyone focuses on a specific type of labor and then trades their product. Therefore wealth can only be brought about through trade, and if one alienates trading partners, one cannot trade and one is limited in well being.

In order to provide for one's own ends, one must recognize and respect the ends of others. This is why order is spontaneous in an anarchistic society.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 10:20 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
It is so refreshing to finally meet someone else who understands Anarchy the same way that I have come to.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 12:09 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
It is so refreshing to finally meet someone else who understands Anarchy the same way that I have come to.


I was very surprised to hear you discussing anarchy in this manner.

How did you come to form your views?

Typically anarchists are too concerned with ideas of equality and capitalists are too concerned with absolute property in the traditional sense for either side to come to a sustainable idea of anarchism.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 12:24 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

In order to provide for one's own ends, one must recognize and respect the ends of others. This is why order is spontaneous in an anarchistic society.


It is hard to put this thought into action in a society that refuses responsibility. Not to mention the current emphasis of hierarchical societies will not allow for the adaptability necessary for spontaneous order. The way in which society educates its citizens is key if the society wishes to be anarchistic. Democracy is an obvious characteristic of an anarchist society, but the problem is getting the common people or masses to build up the proper character for the society to flourish.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 12:37 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
It is hard to put this thought into action in a society that refuses responsibility. Not to mention the current emphasis of hierarchical societies will not allow for the adaptability necessary for spontaneous order. The way in which society educates its citizens is key if the society wishes to be anarchistic. Democracy is an obvious characteristic of an anarchist society, but the problem is getting the common people or masses to build up the proper character for the society to flourish.


This is very true. The job of the anarchist is not political or violent. It is educational.

Although, as an agorist, I think the obvious characteristic of anarchism is the market, and only through a counter-economic revolution will people become free.

In fact, I consider myself a "post-capitalist", and I am on par with Marxists in holding that market anarchism is a materially necessary next step in social progression.
0 Replies
 
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 12:50 pm
@Theaetetus,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I was very surprised to hear you discussing anarchy in this manner.

How did you come to form your views?

Typically anarchists are too concerned with ideas of equality and capitalists are too concerned with absolute property in the traditional sense for either side to come to a sustainable idea of anarchism.


Oddly enough, this falls under a strange category in my brain of things that just make sense. I can't really tell you where they come from because these ideas don't seem to have any substantial roots. They just occur to me.

Theaetetus wrote:
It is hard to put this thought into action in a society that refuses responsibility. Not to mention the current emphasis of hierarchical societies will not allow for the adaptability necessary for spontaneous order. The way in which society educates its citizens is key if the society wishes to be anarchistic. Democracy is an obvious characteristic of an anarchist society, but the problem is getting the common people or masses to build up the proper character for the society to flourish.


As we said, anarchy is a system that would be almost impossible to implement in the current society. This is also a system which is apparent in the current society. The hardest part about all of this is quite simply that people would have to take responsibility for their actions. There would be no fall back, no fail safe. You would be in complete control of your own life.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 12:57 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Oddly enough, this falls under a strange category in my brain of things that just make sense. I can't really tell you where they come from because these ideas don't seem to have any substantial roots. They just occur to me.


For me they are quite apparent, but they were not always so.

I am impressed.

Quote:
As we said, anarchy is a system that would be almost impossible to implement in the current society. This is also a system which is apparent in the current society. The hardest part about all of this is quite simply that people would have to take responsibility for their actions. There would be no fall back, no fail safe. You would be in complete control of your own life.


Yes, it is almost as if a new society grows out of the black market.

It is called "bootstrapping".
0 Replies
 
Joe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 01:09 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
I disagree.

The private individual can protect his property and has done so in the past. In fact, when we consider the nature of an economy built upon a specialized division of labor, respect of property rights becomes materially beneficial to all, and while there may be aberrations, this will be recognized by most.

Foremost, we should not make the mistake to assume that government assumes the cost of protecting property. It is always the productive member of society, the worker and the risk taker, who assumes the costs of property protection, with government being a manner of socializing these costs. It is an irrevocable fact of government that these costs will never be distributed fairly, and one cannot look at the current system (or any of past times) and not determine that the use of government for redistributing these costs has been a method of enforcing economic stratification.

Bailout anyone?


I think you took his idea out of context. Government does not protect directly but Indirectly with laws.

Here's some food for thought:

How come hardly anyone questions(as in contradicts it) the oldest foundations in which we operate? The guy who created Zeitgeist has been interviewed by hardly anyone. Even though his Video is like the most viewed on the Internet.
Seems to me that people like to here the truth but resist it with comfortable nonsense.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 02:25 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
I think you took his idea out of context. Government does not protect directly but Indirectly with laws.


No, I took his idea within context. Private individuals and groups can provide the same protections as government. It can go a step further: since the market tends towards highest and best use and government is arbitrary in this sense, the amount of legal protection necessary under a market system is less.

Property under materialistic (as opposed moralistic) anarchy is best understood in terms of the costs of acquiring, maintaining, and protecting property.
0 Replies
 
rhinogrey
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Dec, 2008 02:50 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
In order for anarchism to ever work in the real world, we would need to establish a radical paradigm shift in the way people are educated. From day one of first grade in Western society, people's minds are formed in such a way that life becomes about making a buck and achieving the greatest amount of convenience. The fact is people live their lives in the way the State wants them to, at the most basic level. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but because it is so deeply ingrained into the fundamentals of the way life is lived, it is difficult to convince anyone of that. That's why we'd have to catch an upcoming generation and completely redesign the system of education.

Most people want to stick with what they're comfortable with. Our life doesn't have to be based on ownership. People are comfortable with being distracted by things so they don't want it to change.

Anarchism, as someone else pointed out, is about change, never stagnation. Democracy seeks to maintain the status quo.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 01:37:58