What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey wrote:

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.

Marx once said that Marxism is a wonderful idea but could only work if there was a global shift to this type of society over night. Same with any utopian society. It would have to be a sudden and immediate shift which is why it would not actually happen. Not unless someone succeeded in taking over the world. Which is also, by historical proof, impossible.

This is why the best thing we can do is grab a little piece of Anarchy in our daily lives and spread it around to people we know can handle it without taking it out of context. Slowly build a system from the inside. it will never take over but perhaps we can be recognized as a religion and get tax breaks Razz

2 Replies

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Marx once said that Marxism is a wonderful idea but could only work if there was a global shift to this type of society over night. Same with any utopian society. It would have to be a sudden and immediate shift which is why it would not actually happen. Not unless someone succeeded in taking over the world. Which is also, by historical proof, impossible.

This is why the best thing we can do is grab a little piece of Anarchy in our daily lives and spread it around to people we know can handle it without taking it out of context. Slowly build a system from the inside. it will never take over but perhaps we can be recognized as a religion and get tax breaks

That's precisely right.

But I've definitely been working on spreading it. Based on my interactions with other anarchists, I can tell there is definitely some momentum with the movement. I'm weening a lot of friends onto it as well. :bigsmile:

Although I still ponder every day how we could make the shift work. It's food for thought, in any case. And I keep being led to one thing: the internet.

Perhaps in the days of Marx a shift was not possible, but with the mass decentralization of media, it is possible that there could be a shift in power from the State to the people. The State no longer has a monopoly as with mainstream news outlets, and alternative media is getting wider exposure than ever before. Who knows?

0 Replies

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey wrote:

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.

Very true. Education is designed to place people in a good position within the existing system and therefore stifles change and ultimately the natural values of economic actors.

If there is ever going to be anarchy, an early step is the elimination of federal government education.

Quote:

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

Yes, the original liberals spoke of democracy gracefully often because it is intensely checked and resistant to rapid change.

Icon wrote:

Marx once said that Marxism is a wonderful idea but could only work if there was a global shift to this type of society over night. Same with any utopian society. It would have to be a sudden and immediate shift which is why it would not actually happen. Not unless someone succeeded in taking over the world. Which is also, by historical proof, impossible.

This is why the best thing we can do is grab a little piece of Anarchy in our daily lives and spread it around to people we know can handle it without taking it out of context. Slowly build a system from the inside. it will never take over but perhaps we can be recognized as a religion and get tax breaks

The market is beneficial, the state is not.

That simple fact will cause anarchism to grow. The more people realize the inefficiencies of the state, the more they will attempt to circumvent it.

0 Replies

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Marx once said that Marxism is a wonderful idea but could only work if there was a global shift to this type of society over night. Same with any utopian society. It would have to be a sudden and immediate shift which is why it would not actually happen. Not unless someone succeeded in taking over the world. Which is also, by historical proof, impossible.

This is why the best thing we can do is grab a little piece of Anarchy in our daily lives and spread it around to people we know can handle it without taking it out of context. Slowly build a system from the inside. it will never take over but perhaps we can be recognized as a religion and get tax breaks

The market is beneficial, the state is not.

That simple fact will cause anarchism to grow. The more people realize the inefficiencies of the state, the more they will attempt to circumvent it.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

the problem in anarchy lies not in the market, but in sociology
government is not something that was forced on us, we chose it out of an animal instinct of safety in numbers, and when a sufficient number of people wish to unite, they need a common ruling body to keep them in order.
hate though we do to admit it, this pack instinct still resides in us today, at its most potent it is known as nationalism, so your anarchaic state would work for a short span of time, but simply out of social instincts, the people would turn back to an organized government, in much the same way many theists turn to organized religion, for safety and guidance. A marxist society works very well in altruistic theoretics, but if one lives in a community where the only justice is the lynch mob, bias, graft, and tradition would replace reason even if your society did not revert. And all it would take is one ambitions individual with no respect for the property of others to unbalance the system, and with no government to keep it in check, things would run rampant with nothing guiding the human race but mob psychology

2 Replies

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

the problem in anarchy lies not in the market, but in sociology
government is not something that was forced on us, we chose it out of an animal instinct of safety in numbers, and when a sufficient number of people wish to unite, they need a common ruling body to keep them in order.
hate though we do to admit it, this pack instinct still resides in us today, at its most potent it is known as nationalism, so your anarchaic state would work for a short span of time, but simply out of social instincts, the people would turn back to an organized government, in much the same way many theists turn to organized religion, for safety and guidance. A marxist society works very well in altruistic theoretics, but if one lives in a community where the only justice is the lynch mob, bias, graft, and tradition would replace reason even if your society did not revert. And all it would take is one ambitions individual with no respect for the property of others to unbalance the system, and with no government to keep it in check, things would run rampant with nothing guiding the human race but mob psychology

Before I make my next statement I would like to make it clear that I understand where you are coming from and I can also agree to a point that it would not be the most stable system at first.

First of all, yes. We chose government, created, rationalized and brought to life. But why? Look at the history of any government. Why was it created? Because a small group of individuals with a common goal needed guidance to this goal. But no one ever thought about what happens oncew the goal is achieved. What do you do when you reach the final purpose of a system of control? Nothing. You let it grow because it is the control. You let it spin wildly out of control until it is all that guides you. Then you start to notice something else. The people get more and more dependent. All of a sudden they can't think for themselves, act for themselves, provide for themselves. They become nothing more than puzzle pieces, keeping the status quo. This is the problem with any system. It is designed for a purpose but we have a hard time letting it go once the purpose is achieved and it begins to cripple us. The world is based around change. All things change always. Even in nature, change happens all the time and we are a part of nature. Do not make the mistake of thinking that we are above it because we have come this far. The only true system which will ever work is one that allows for constant change. The only system which does this is a system with the least number of controls. Anarchy

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

the problem in anarchy lies not in the market, but in sociology

Studying the market and the political change that can be forced by market participants is a part of sociology.

Quote:

government is not something that was forced on us, we chose it out of an animal instinct of safety in numbers, and when a sufficient number of people wish to unite, they need a common ruling body to keep them in order.
hate though we do to admit it, this pack instinct still resides in us today, at its most potent it is known as nationalism, so your anarchaic state would work for a short span of time, but simply out of social instincts, the people would turn back to an organized government, in much the same way many theists turn to organized religion, for safety and guidance. A marxist society works very well in altruistic theoretics, but if one lives in a community where the only justice is the lynch mob, bias, graft, and tradition would replace reason even if your society did not revert. And all it would take is one ambitions individual with no respect for the property of others to unbalance the system, and with no government to keep it in check, things would run rampant with nothing guiding the human race but mob psychology

There are many problems here, and I guess I should start from the beginning.

Now first off, there is some truth to your idea that we chose safety in numbers. It isn't so much that we chose safety in numbers, but that we are naturally social creatures probably because our evolutionary ancestors prospered better in social groups, that much seems fairly apparent. This natural tendency to group together did not, however, lead to civil government for the first 190,000 years of human existence. It is rather damning to realize that government did not really come into existence until after some emerging sedentary lifestyles allowed for the existence of specialized warriors and bureaucrats. This doesn't imply that early civilization didn't choose to have a government (although it seems to support it more than your alternative), but in the end, it doesn't matter what humanity originally chose, as we have increasingly changed our environment more and more to suit us.

Now, like I said, there is truth to what you say about humans being pack animals, but I have to ask you why that implies we must have a government. Yes, people are nationalistic and support their government out of a somewhat blind need to belong, or it appears. However, this same need can be satisfied by community pride, religion, social clubs, any number of non-state entities. If anything, it seems that states, like your example of organized religion, are not the natural product of people banding together, but of certain individuals exploiting this desire. There is nothing that states this exploitation must continue.

I am not a Marxist. I have my own little historical materialism, and I take many Marxist ideas. I differ on several very key issues, however. Most importantly, I recognize his economic theories to be bogus, and this indicts Marxist ideas of exploitation. I take the Austrian idea of exploitation, namely that it occurs due to statist cartelization and monopolization of the market. I should state that I recognize the existence of externalities and prohibitive transaction costs and the chances for exploitation they carry, but I do not believe that state intervention is the best method to correct these issues. Most importantly, my historical materialism differs from the traditional Marxist ideas. Marx believed that a free labor market would lead capitalists to produce themselves out of existence by exhausting their ability to profit. I, on the other hand, believe that the unfree labor markets necessary to prop up capitalist interests, will lead market participants away from state control. So, in essence, present capitalism rests on state control, but people would gain more under a labor market free of government control, leading these individuals to form a sort of mutualism that eats the system away from the inside.

Finally, I cannot understand how government promotes reason. First off, history is fully of mob mentality and insanity being expressed through government. Even you recognize the problem of nationalism. The fact of the matter is that people are never unreasonable, it is simply that the guidelines that lead our decision are malleable and flex to fit our situations. The best example of this is examining just how government actions affect our decisions. We understand our decision making process in terms of satisfaction, and the reasonable deliberation as to how to maximize this satisfaction. As such, our decision-making process involves utility, an increase in satisfaction, and costs, a decrease in satisfaction. Now, as I mentioned in an earlier post, government necessarily socializes and deflects costs.
Take a look at the bailout and other government insurance of certain companies and securities. We can continue to act like all of these companies and investors were simply unreasonable and irresponsible, but when we break it down, we can see that government, by taking on the risk of these investments, has not caused people to be unreasonable, but have provided reasonable people with a different set of costs and values to influence their decisions.
All government action works in this manner. Those responsible for government decisions pass the costs of these decisions to all of those who pay for the government, yet it is rare, likely impossible, for all those who pay for government to agree on a decision. What this means is that all government action is not necessarily unreasonable, but is necessarily skewed because of those who make the decisions place the cost of these decisions on the entirety of society.
So basically, government encourages decision making processes that people would consider irrational (even though, technically they are still rational), and quite a many social structures that exist today would simply not exist under an anarchistic society simply because the people responsible for them would have to bear the costs of them.

So if you want to discuss something replacing reason, it is clear that if reason were to be supplanted, it would be replaced by the cost shifting mechanisms of the state.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

firstly, i agree with you on most points, but i fail to see how a mob psychology based society can be better than a constitutionally outlined government, when emotion is the base of all descision (and in such a mob, it is emotion that trumps all) the system is unreliable, i also agree with you on the basis of the market, the market should be free of all but the most basic anti theft and labor laws, but such things are necesarry. For example, although the privilage has been abused, imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was taken away, there has to be a way to control both employers and employees besides a lynch mob. in your society, it would be perfectly acceptable for an employer to gun down any strikers and have done with it, it would be equally possible for an employee mob to kill and destry an entire industrial cornerstone, so while your system is flawless in theory, it fails to remember that not all are as rational as you would say, people who will work for slave wages when by not working in large numbers they can bring their oppressors to their knees? people who destroy themselves and multiple innocents just to prove a point that will only incurr more violence, these are not rational, and they are not a small minority either, and so, there needs to be constraints, boundries. flexible, but firm. If humanity is to continue its rate of aggresive growth, there must be a controlling force that keeps it from destroying itself from the inside out

1 Reply

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

firstly, i agree with you on most points, but i fail to see how a mob psychology based society can be better than a constitutionally outlined government, when emotion is the base of all descision (and in such a mob, it is emotion that trumps all) the system is unreliable, i also agree with you on the basis of the market, the market should be free of all but the most basic anti theft and labor laws, but such things are necesarry. For example, although the privilage has been abused, imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was taken away, there has to be a way to control both employers and employees besides a lynch mob. in your society, it would be perfectly acceptable for an employer to gun down any strikers and have done with it, it would be equally possible for an employee mob to kill and destry an entire industrial cornerstone, so while your system is flawless in theory, it fails to remember that not all are as rational as you would say, people who will work for slave wages when by not working in large numbers they can bring their oppressors to their knees? people who destroy themselves and multiple innocents just to prove a point that will only incurr more violence, these are not rational, and they are not a small minority either, and so, there needs to be constraints, boundries. flexible, but firm. If humanity is to continue its rate of aggresive growth, there must be a controlling force that keeps it from destroying itself from the inside out

The control IS the possibility of destruction from superior forces. People will not do these things because it would be detrimental to their growth and well being. In order to understand the concept, you have to remove what you have been bred to understand. Remove societies influence on the self and imagine what it would be like to be free. It's not that hard. The reason people freak out is because there is no other option. All legal avenues are closed to those without a large sum of money and all the laws are built for those who have more to give the government in question. Without these controls, everyone is equal in every way. People are responsible, solely, for their progression in life. There is no system which prevents you from doing whatever you want which means you are going to do whatever it is that is best for you. It's that simple. You won't steal because the consequences are not worth it and you may depend on those people at some point. You won't murder because you may be murdered. The only "crimes" will be those with personal vendetta against individuals because there would be no organization or institution with which to hold a grudge, no rules preventing you from achieving, no control with which to have a disagreement. There would be no stress other than that which you create yourself.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

thats the problem with equality though, its only permanent when it is enforced, the government is not a tool of the rich, heck, the rich probably pay less taxes than i do, and the problem with anarchy is that there are no more consequences other than those you impose on yourself, and although the enlightened individuals of this forum may be morally fibrous enough now, please imagine what you would do if there were no constrictions, would you continue to live under the subconcious laws you have lived your whole life, no. Morals would not even be relative, they would be forgotten, there would be pandemonium, a contract would be nothing but fancy wallpaper as far as power, and one would have to rely on the human race being as altruistic as possible, which i have learned from experience, is not a prudent course of action. The fight for onesself becomes all consuming, and in the end we become little more than educated animals, if even that

2 Replies

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

thats the problem with equality though, its only permanent when it is enforced, the government is not a tool of the rich, heck, the rich probably pay less taxes than i do,

The rich are in complete control of government. This is WHY they pay less taxes than you do. Equality is not enforced by the government at all. The government is the group which creates inequality. Example: Because of certain taxes and government restrictions, many children cannot go to college because they make too much for financial aid but not enough to pay for school and living. This prevents people from getting degrees which prevents them from getting jobs. The government has decided that minorities should have preference in the job market. This prevents the majority from getting certain jobs that they may be more qualified for.

Equality is not an idea, it is a state of being. We hold that all men were created equal. But all men are not treated equal because government regulations don't allow it.

Quote:

and the problem with anarchy is that there are no more consequences other than those you impose on yourself, and although the enlightened individuals of this forum may be morally fibrous enough now, please imagine what you would do if there were no constrictions, would you continue to live under the subconcious laws you have lived your whole life, no.

I live and have lived through two methods. Social Contract and Anarchy. I follow the rules of the area in which I choose to live whether they be social, ethical, or physical laws. This also means that I only follow the rules which I find suit me. So you are wrong sir. I DO follow a moral cde simply because it suits me to do so. I feel no obligations toward a government of any kind. Also, the consequences are those you impose upon yourself through action. If you steal, you are not going to be the one giving out the punishment. You will merely be the one who committed the act which landed you in the "hot seat" so to speak. Life is about choices already. The ONLY difference would be that the punishment would have no limitations. Stealing bread could land you a spot in a torture chamber if you're stupid enough to steal bread from the wrong person. This has been my point from the start. You are stuck in this vision of government having control over you but you have the power to choose currently. If government were truly in control of anything or even necessary then murderers would not get away because of red tape and legal loop holes. You might want to research your government a bit more closely and watch the actual trends. The rich get away with murder while the poor are locked up for trying to better their lives with substances like pot. An herb which comes from the ground.

Quote:

Morals would not even be relative, they would be forgotten, there would be pandemonium, a contract would be nothing but fancy wallpaper as far as power, and one would have to rely on the human race being as altruistic as possible, which i have learned from experience, is not a prudent course of action. The fight for onesself becomes all consuming, and in the end we become little more than educated animals, if even that

Again, you assume that the government is actually in control of anything. It is not the truth. If I wanted to go out and shoot 15 people right now, the government could not stop me any faster than a group of citizens with guns. After I get arrested I would find a loop hole which would land me life in prison and the appeal for parol and, in 10 years, do it again. But a lynch mob would put a good stop to it. In the end, the only problem with anarchy, per se, is that you as an individual are completely, solely, responsible for the the actions you take and the consequences visited upon you for those actions. Through your arguments I can see that this frightens you. Are you not ready to be responsible for yourself?

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

thats the problem with equality though, its only permanent when it is enforced, the government is not a tool of the rich, heck, the rich probably pay less taxes than i do, and the problem with anarchy is that there are no more consequences other than those you impose on yourself, and although the enlightened individuals of this forum may be morally fibrous enough now, please imagine what you would do if there were no constrictions, would you continue to live under the subconcious laws you have lived your whole life, no. Morals would not even be relative, they would be forgotten, there would be pandemonium, a contract would be nothing but fancy wallpaper as far as power, and one would have to rely on the human race being as altruistic as possible, which i have learned from experience, is not a prudent course of action. The fight for onesself becomes all consuming, and in the end we become little more than educated animals, if even that

You have a horribly low opinion of yourself if you believe you would abandon your morals if they were not forced on you. You seem to believe yourself to be subhuman.

Even if we assume people are worthless blobs of self-preserving meat, your argument still doesn't make sense.

Why do your friends not lie to you? It is not a crime to lie in most instances. The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, contracts can be self-imposing simply because reputation can be known without any sort of pre-existing contact. People will not violate contractual agreements because they will not be able to enter into further contracts.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;36363 wrote:

People will not violate contractual agreements because they will not be able to enter into further contracts.

Give me a break...ok, you can't really believe this. Sure, it makes some logical sense, and if all people were both intelligent and rational, this statement might be somewhat realistic. But, it is just a ridiculous assumption, and this is where your entire argument falls apart. Maybe the poster you responded to is too pessimistic, but you are much too optimistic, when viewing human behavior.

How many people now violate contractual agreements, even with laws that will punish them for violating them? Do you think without law it will be better? Well, let's look at the market we do have which is the best example of this type of system, the black market. The buying and selling of illegal substances and goods is done on a market that really has no overlying system of rule or form of governing (maybe in certain areas that are controlled by powerful criminal groups they do have something like this). Without the state's knowledge and consent of these transactions though, the people operating on the black market resort to violence in order to enforce their contracts. Still, the fear of death by revenge for taking delivery of drugs without payment is not enough to stop many people. They do not care about breaking contracts, because in such a large market, there are plenty of other people to go to who will not be aware of this reputation.

We have enough contract violations and crime even with rule of law; to think that this will somehow improve when we remove rule of law is just ridiculous. Everyone out there is not as good as you might want to believe. Take away law, and they will be out looting, raping, and killing at the first opportunity. Look at what happened in New Orleans during/after Katrina...

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Very good debate gents...

I've been giving this issue some thought and I have to admit to some conflicting feelings on this issue. There's a part of me that *much* prefers the notion of living within a small enclave where rules, morals and interactions aren't so much dictated by the larger body-politic.

But something tells me that given what I've seen of human nature, it's just not realistic; not only in terms of is it even possible to live like that but even moreso, would we be any better off?

If folks were somehow more respectful and cooperative; yee haw! I don't see it, but am open to the argument.

Thanks

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Give me a break...ok, you can't really believe this. Sure, it makes some logical sense, and if all people were both intelligent and rational, this statement might be somewhat realistic. But, it is just a ridiculous assumption, and this is where your entire argument falls apart. Maybe the poster you responded to is too pessimistic, but you are much too optimistic, when viewing human behavior.

How many people now violate contractual agreements, even with laws that will punish them for violating them? Do you think without law it will be better? Well, let's look at the market we do have which is the best example of this type of system, the black market. The buying and selling of illegal substances and goods is done on a market that really has no overlying system of rule or form of governing (maybe in certain areas that are controlled by powerful criminal groups they do have something like this). Without the state's knowledge and consent of these transactions though, the people operating on the black market resort to violence in order to enforce their contracts. Still, the fear of death by revenge for taking delivery of drugs without payment is not enough to stop many people. They do not care about breaking contracts, because in such a large market, there are plenty of other people to go to who will not be aware of this reputation.

We have enough contract violations and crime even with rule of law; to think that this will somehow improve when we remove rule of law is just ridiculous. Everyone out there is not as good as you might want to believe. Take away law, and they will be out looting, raping, and killing at the first opportunity. Look at what happened in New Orleans during/after Katrina...

I did not propose it as an iron statement that no one will break contracts, only that reputation will be enough to keep the vast majority of individuals from breaking contractual agreements. I also do not rule out the role of private judicial systems enforcing contracts.

I do question your apparent knowledge of just how often people break contractual agreements in black markets, perhaps you truly are immersed in the drug trade. However, there is something that you have overlooked: by their nature of being illegal, these black markets are shrouded in secrecy. It is hardly a surprise that someone's likelihood to shirk on a drug transaction would not be common knowledge, as even sellers would not be likely to give out this information.

I never stated that there would be no law, only that without government overprotection, we can count on reputation being a very strong factor in maintaining ethical business practice. Therefore, even if private law is less omnipresent (and I consider the lessening of legal oversight a benefit of anarchism), it can afford to be so.

And finally, comparing a legitimate anarchistic model to Katrina-ravaged New Orleans implies you do not have any grasp on anarchism, or you are attempting to lampoon a argument that is stronger than you wish to admit.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;36375 wrote:

I did not propose it as an iron statement that no one will break contracts, only that reputation will be enough to keep the vast majority of individuals from breaking contractual agreements.

There is no reason to believe that people will behave in this way...there are a hell of a lot of activities people engage in now, illegal or legal, without having any regard for their reputations. They satisfy their desires to the extent that they can get away with it.

Quote:

I do question your apparent knowledge of just how often people break contractual agreements in black markets, perhaps you truly are immersed in the drug trade. However, there is something that you have overlooked: by their nature of being illegal, these black markets are shrouded in secrecy. It is hardly a surprise that someone's likelihood to shirk on a drug transaction would not be common knowledge, as even sellers would not be likely to give out this information.

Yes, of course the nature of it being illegal, secret, and somewhat anonymous does cause some of this. This market though is the closest I could think of to being what you are proposing; there is no type of social arrangement or marketplace that works like the one you describe. It is some type of utopian ideal that can not, and has not worked. Hence, why we don't see it.

Quote:

I never stated that there would be no law, only that without government overprotection, we can count on reputation being a very strong factor in maintaining ethical business practice. Therefore, even if private law is less omnipresent (and I consider the lessening of legal oversight a benefit of anarchism), it can afford to be so.

And finally, comparing a legitimate anarchistic model to Katrina-ravaged New Orleans implies you do not have any grasp on anarchism, or you are attempting to lampoon a argument that is stronger than you wish to admit.

You are the one who has no grasp on anarchism. You apparently do not even know the definition; anarchy, from the greek, meaning "without rule". If you "never stated that there would be no law" in this utopian, unrealistic society, then it is not anarchy. I don't know who you have been reading to come up with your "legitimate anarchistic model", but at least I know what the definition of anarchy actually is. You seem to be talking about something else.

Further, whether this utopia you advocate is anarchy or something other than anarchy, you are basing your arguments on assumptions about human behavior that are just plain wrong. The "rational actor model" just does not work in reality, and we have known this for quite some time now.

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

You are the one who has no grasp on anarchism.

Whatever you say.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

There is no reason to believe that people will behave in this way...there are a hell of a lot of activities people engage in now, illegal or legal, without having any regard for their reputations. They satisfy their desires to the extent that they can get away with it.

Bingo. To the extent that they can get away with it. This statement is one based purely on a system with government. Think about it. To the extent that they can get away with it changes in meaning when you do not have a set standard of punishment. When people decide your punishment based on your crime, you have a tendency to think twice or wind up dead. I am not attacking you in any sort of way but you really need to get out of the box of rules that you seem to be trapped in. In all honesty, people know they can get away with a lot more when the punishment is dealt out by a society with loop holes.

Quote:

Yes, of course the nature of it being illegal, secret, and somewhat anonymous does cause some of this. This market though is the closest I could think of to being what you are proposing; there is no type of social arrangement or marketplace that works like the one you describe. It is some type of utopian ideal that can not, and has not worked. Hence, why we don't see it.

We HAVE seen it actually. Barter systems of the old days, prior to a monitary system. Even more so, we see this type of economy online if you think about it. I know web work and so I have traded my services for goods at some of my favorite online stores. Don't say it is NOT happening when it is just not happening to you. Again, get out of the bubble. You seem to have this concept that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I am sure there are a great many things you have not experienced that we know to be real and current.

Quote:

You are the one who has no grasp on anarchism. You apparently do not even know the definition; anarchy, from the greek, meaning "without rule". If you "never stated that there would be no law" in this utopian, unrealistic society, then it is not anarchy. I don't know who you have been reading to come up with your "legitimate anarchistic model", but at least I know what the definition of anarchy actually is. You seem to be talking about something else.

Without rule is a literal translation but when translated in context, anarchy actually means "without a ruling class". In short, without leaders who dictate authority. There would be rules but the rules would be unspoken, unwritten laws of community based around the needs of the community in question. These rules would have no bearing on actual laws of the land. Simply things which make living in that society better. They would be agreed upon by those who live there as natural laws and when new people came to town, the rules would be taught to them in a similar fashion as to children, through observation. If one broke a rule unknowingly, that would be their problem and at the hands of those involved. Again, please do not assume that you have the all knowing eye in your back pocket. Be open to different possibilities beyond what you currently understand. There is no other way to follow philosophy.

Quote:

Further, whether this utopia you advocate is anarchy or something other than anarchy, you are basing your arguments on assumptions about human behavior that are just plain wrong. The "rational actor model" just does not work in reality, and we have known this for quite some time now.

Actually his arguments on human behavior are spot on. If you knew anything about human sociology and psychology, you would know this. Being that I have a Masters level education in both, I might be a good resource for you if you have questions as to why. Mankind will follow the path which best suits his needs and desires. Period. End of story. In order to get what you want, you have to give up what you have. TANSTAAFL my friend. The part where you are making the disconnect is that you seem to be considering a government like system being innate in all mankind. This is not true. The point of anarchy is that you have to take responsibility for your actions in full. there is no jail system to bail you out, no legal system to hide in. You are at the mercy of those you offend. This would make one tread lightly or get killed. That is the simple "rule" here. And since you are much less likely to desire death over life, you will behave and do as you must to get along. Please try to limit the hostility of your posts and try to get an open mind as it will provide for much more productive debates.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

to mr icon
by enforced equality, i mean that unless there is active government protection, the ambitious will always rise to the top, and in that ascent, those less well off will be both hurt and jealous, some people, through dint of work, inteligence or a combination of the two, will always rise to the top, and result in your ruling minority and inequality
as to the deal of reputation, even with the invention of the internet, the world contains almost 7 billion people, do you really think that a smirched reputation is going to be a problem when there are so many other communities to whom ones reputation is sterling. reputation is all well and good when running for election and hosting dinner parties, but it is not nearly as important when it comes to issues of life and death.
you continue to place trust in lynch mobs, need i remind you of the largest, most supported, and most heinously wrong lynch mob in history... (hint, three words, all of which begin with a K), are you saying that you would trust life and death justice to a rabble of biased, impulsive people acting on the spur of the moment, our current system may be inneficient and top heavy, but in all our history of capital punishment, we've only federally sanctioned the killing of 119 innocent people, what would that number be under your lynch mob justice system
and lastly, are you even listneing to yourself, you talk about the rich turning the justice system on its head

"The ONLY difference would be that the punishment would have no limitations. Stealing bread could land you a spot in a torture chamber if you're stupid enough to steal bread from the wrong person."

the wrong people, sounds a lot like the rich aristocrats of our society to me

1 Reply

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

to mr icon
by enforced equality, i mean that unless there is active government...

the wrong people, sounds a lot like the rich aristocrats of our society to me

It's true, those who are more motivated, more determined, more intelligent and more dedicated to success will have more to offer. But this goes back to being 100% responsible for yourself. You could just as easily be that person as anyone else. You just have to choose to do so. This is the best and most terrifying part of anarchy. You can do whatever you want to do. Period. This is the part that scares most people because most people are frightened by the prospect of responsibility. To me, it is refreshing. There would not b rich aristocrats because someone could easily and would frequently topple their reign of power. That's the beauty. If you don't like how things are going, change it. It is a system which forces you to work with others as a human because national, racial, religious lines can no longer be an obstacle if you are to survive and flourish. You have to be a citizen of mankind rather than a slave of your respective government.

0 Replies

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know