What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

Living in anarchy does not put you outside of society so much as it puts you in a subclass which can change on a whim. See, anarchy in a democracy still demands that you follow certain rules and don't get caught for breaking others. weak or strong is mostly in the mind. Of course there are the exceptions of those who are born with physical or mental disadvantages but all others are born with the same potential. Whether they are weak or strong is a personal choice. Those born with a disadvantage have their own unique skills which can be used just as much as anyone else. So instead of classifying things as weak and strong, we separate skill types. Again, weak and strong, right or wrong, guilt, blame, are all concepts created by your mind in order to get along in your current society. In order to understand Anarchy, you need to break these concepts. Otherwise, it is hopeless and useless for us to explain any further because you are only going to break our concepts down into black or white binary responses and anarchy doesn't work in binary. It is not black and white. It is a more gray scale.

The least will do as everyone else. They will do as they can as long as they can. There would be no more special treatment and baby-ing of these people. Everyone pulls their weight and finds a place where their unique skills are needed.

If thats what it is you can keep it...it is nothing but returning to neanderthals versus homosapiens...i hope i have more humanity..

If thats what it is you can keep it...it is nothing but returning to neanderthals versus homosapiens...i hope i have more humanity..

hmmmm, where o where to begin

to start with mr Xris- please note the similarity between your baseless dialogue and every speech molotov ever delivered, actually scratch that specification, that ANY crazed revolutionary regime has ever delivered

moving on- we have already established this point, government is not meant to restrict law abiding and high moraled indiviidual such as yourself, the law is there to govern those who would otherwise be sociopaths, murderers and lynch mobsters
these people refuse to govern themselves, why do you think the crime rate in russia is so high, their government is so spread thin they have no control over the baser parts of their populace. The government exists to protect the people such as yourself from the crazy ones such as charlie mansen, do you really want to make people like him thier own master

Class1:
Kim Ung-yong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William James Sidis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norbert Wiener - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class 2:
(possibly class 1) Ludwig Wittgenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bertrand Russell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Class 3:

(possibly class 2)Richard Feynman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Erd?s - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quine

Jung

ect... I could go on all day manufacturing class systems, but to make things short, people are not equal in any literal/natural sense. If we were in a primative state, those who were naturally stronger would rule, create a system in which another attribute might be useful and there would be those with more strength in the desired attribute. It so happens that the current attributes are the ability to manipulate situations and intelligence.

That mental disability has been conceded to be a disadvantage by Icon, and that mental disability is relative, it follows that superior mental ability is an advantage over inferior/average ability when said attribute is in demand.

By the very virtue of the fact that men are different it follows that some men will always be at an advantage over others, for all of us have relative gifts or deficiencies on one thing or another, thus merit is based on the order of the day be it societal or natural, thus some have a natural advantageover others no matter the circumstance.

I'm not sure what you mean. I am willing to bet you a large sum of money that the people you mentioned in the above list were not talented football players, painters, cooks, etc. The man with 3 PhDs from Harvard and an IQ of 150 still has to walk into a car repair shop to ask for the help of someone who never graduated high school, and has an IQ of 95, to fix his car.

You would be right because I essentially admitted so much in my post. Personally I think that football players are grossly overpaid considering how useful they really are(useful meaning how much they give to society as a whole, though honestly, the football industry does provide jobs, so it has some intrinsic merit), but such is the price of the free market. I would say that painters have at least some insight and actually would place some of them on par with men of pure science(and there is some intersection).

More and more it will probably be the case that there is no room for people with no high school degree(by the way, most mechanics do have degrees for the most part, usually highschool and technical school, at least in the U.S.). The more we mechanize work, the more education is necessary. Toyota and Honda use more mechanized processes and thus do not need to spend tons of money dealing with union guys who want 50 grand a year for adjusting lug nuts. Mechanizing simple jobs is simply cost effective. There is currently quite a bit of work being done to create robots to take jobs in the nursing sector in Japan. The guy with the 95 i.q. is being replaced with the cheaper more efficient robot.

That someone has a skill, or can develop one that they can make a living with, does not say anything to promote your views. The Harvard Professor still makes 5 times as much as Mr. Mechanic and thus has a safer, easier lifestyle. The same is true in a primitive state. The strongest, most physically able tends to be the one with the most power.

lakeshoredrive wrote:

You can't use a single scale to measure ability, because everyone has different abilities. However, when you put all of these abilities together, you get the sum of all human ability, and that's what anarchy is all about. I'm an anarchist because I recognize that, while there is a 'me', there is no boundary to 'me'. What makes me me, is how I interact with my surroundings. So if my environment changes, I change. This means that I am everything. Everyone is everything. And when you recognize the oneness of everything, anarchy is really the natural response, for me at least.

Interesting,my natural response to what I felt was the true nature of things was nihilism. Then a sense of compassion caused by the knowledge of the universally shared absurdity that is the human experience. I feel that we are all living out thinly disguised versions of the myth of Sisyphus, pushing our boulders up the hill, certain of nothing. I also recognize that it is our faith in inductive reasoning that allows us to carry on day to day.

Icon: You are correct in your assessment. Stability, ease and safety are the primary reasons for primitive peoples to gather and settle. If it is the case that the society provides no benefit then there is no reason to keep it. A fortiori, if the society in actuality puts one in a worse situation than one would naturally be in, there is no reason to keep it.

I do not know where you live, but clearly you feel that your situation is no better and perhaps even worse than that of the primitive state, hence it makes no sense to pay any heed to your government. Realize that another living under your government might benefit from the current structure of things, hence he is going to want to preserve the governmental structure. I certainly benefit from the government, so I cannot totally sympathize with your views. I do think that all people should benefit from government to the same extent that I do, though they should not abuse the system.

So how would your anarchy treat the least?

Governments will always fail the individual on occassions ,it does not mean the system is wrong..Democracy should protect the individual it has interest in doing so..Anarchy has no such desire or necessity..

Mr. Fight The Power,

Put that way; it just feels a bit like some sort of: 'Wouldn't it be great if everyone played by these rules and never exploited people by creating a system to gain power and leverage?' praxis.

Mr. Fight The Power,

Put that way; it just feels a bit like some sort of: 'Wouldn't it be great if everyone played by these rules and never exploited people by creating a system to gain power and leverage?' praxis.

Mr. Fight The Power,

Put that way; it just feels a bit like some sort of: 'Wouldn't it be great if everyone played by these rules and never exploited people by creating a system to gain power and leverage?' praxis.

That is what those who huddle under the protection of the state wish for.

How many times must I point out the way in which the modern market division of labor creates in all participants an interdependency with other participants?

These rules are followed not because of some moral duty, as we pray our politically empowered fellows will act, but because it is preferable for free, rational, and self-serving men will act this way.

All along I have pointed out how the state fosters irrational and violent behavior principally because it places the cost of these actions on the victims. The victims respond with a perverse Stockholm Syndrome, like they are relieved that they didn't have to stick up for themselves.

sir, you are right to assume i live in fear of the loss of control

that would be because in all past incidents where anarchy has reigned for even a short time, it has been a massive bloodbath, the best example that comes to mind would be the french revolution, although the bolsheivik revolution and post roman europe also come to mind, we live in fear because as mr Zetetic claimed, your system of "everyone will respect each other and look out for themselves" only works in theory, self determination, as you advocate, leads to dissidence and strife, there can be only one system in place within a given geographic zone, and since anarchy is proven not to work, there realy only is no other option

That's not anarchy, man. Murder does not occur in anarchy, because the essence of murder is the demonstration of authority. Anarchy means no authority, at all.

Here are questions I need specific concrete answers to before I will consider the comparative moral aspects of the two systems(you seem to have a stronger sense of morality than myself in that you see more in black and white, maybe that is just my perception):

How would we retain the standards of transportation, electronics, internet, ect.?

How would it be possible to prevent the advent of something along the lines of (and this is the flaw I see in anarcho-capitolism) someone hoarding wealth and buying up a military to force their will on people. Do not reply by saying that some form of moral compass exists or that common sense should come into play. This will most certainly be a possibility.

How would you implement this in actuality? Violent revolution? How is this preferable?

To what degree would there be a system? Monetary,military ect.