Anarchism

[marthanoob]

I hear about this system everywhere and am wondering why so many intellectuals are so intrigued by it.
I do not see how any form of it can be applied, with desirable results in mind, to a large country without active participation in maintaining it by the populace. The common man simply wants to be told what to do, wants to believe he is safe in his own house, and still think that he has some degree of freedom. This is not the case in anarchism.

 

[AltF4]

I know. With anarchy you can't produce any gold or make scientific advancement. Democracy allows you to make lots of money, but you can't wage a war without your cities going into civil unrest!

It's usually best to build a Statue of Liberty, so you can easily switch between Communism and Democracy without having periods of annoying Anarchy. Problem solved!

 

[Digital Watches]

I know. With anarchy you can't produce any gold or make scientific advancement. Democracy allows you to make lots of money, but you can't wage a war without your cities going into civil unrest!

It's usually best to build a Statue of Liberty, so you can easily switch between Communism and Democracy without having periods of annoying Anarchy. Problem solved!

Is dat sum Sid Meier?

Personally, I favor anachronism, as long as we're not making any sense.

 

[RDK]

I think by adhering to a system of democracy we're encouraging the weaker members of the species to survive, and thus interfering with natural selection. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Firus]

I think by adhering to a system of democracy we're encouraging the weaker members of the species to survive, and thus interfering with natural selection. But maybe that's just me.

I don't get it. First of all, how does having a Republic (it's not a Democracy, there is a rather large difference between the two) encourage weaker members to survive so much more than anything else? The only way I can see that is if you're saying that by letting weaker members of society to have a part and not be completely useless, and...that would imply that we're supposed to make people feel useless so they'll give up on life...?

Regardless, we're constantly interfering with natural selection. By giving special care to physically and mentally impaired people, for just one example, we are interfering with natural selection.
Is it wrong to do that? Are we supposed to be like the Romans, and other types of ancient cultures, who killed the mentally and physically impaired babies? Yeah, first of all, that seems cruel. Second of all, I don't think anyone else would look fondly upon that besides you.

 

[Digital Watches]

Whenever people start spouting nonsense like that, I laugh a bit inwardly to myself for the simple knowledge that 99.9999843% of the time, the person would be singing a different tune if a situation in which they were unfortunate enough to require aid were to come up.

 

[RDK]

Jesus Christ. Sarcasm much?

Alt's repsonse was lifted completely from a Sid Meier game manual, so I thought I'd say something equally ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, this is a joke topic.

 

[Digital Watches]

Jesus Christ. Sarcasm much?

Alt's repsonse was lifted completely from a Sid Meier game manual, so I thought I'd say something equally ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, this is a joke topic.

Oh, I must have given the wrong impression.

I know YOU were being sarcastic, but I've heard Anarchy-advocates actually make points like that.

 

[Knyaguy]

If you are really intersted check out political philospher John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Chapters 1-2 deal with the State of Nature, basically the creation of government. Here are the Spark Notes for it.

 

[marthanoob]

If you are really intersted check out political philospher John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. Chapters 1-2 deal with the State of Nature, basically the creation of government. Here are the Spark Notes for it.

I think the sparknotes gave more information about why it will not work than why it will work...

Locke's theory includes many assumptions. First is the assumption of a system of morality--the natural law derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions, nor would there be any standard of "just" punishment. Locke frequently uses the term "rights" and appeals to conscience and "calm reason", all of which reflect his assumptions about justice and morality.

Thanks for the serious response.

I'm still unable to picture anarchism in a realistic scenario.

 

[manhunter098]

I agree that anarchism wouldnt work. To actually remain in a state of anarchy we would pretty much all need to agree to not embrace the leadership of others, and thats simply not going to happen.

I would think the only real chance for anarchy to work would be if the vast majority of all humans were well educated (at least 90% IMO).

Also, I think that its human instinct to either lead or be led. We are after all social animals and society will always end up with a hierarchy forming because we are not equal.

And honestly, I would rather be lead rather loosely by someone and be allowed to make a great deal of my own decisions than to have the possibility of ending up being enslaved, and I really do feel that slaver is a potential development of we enter a state of anarchy.

 

[marthanoob]

And honestly, I would rather be lead rather loosely by someone and be allowed to make a great deal of my own decisions than to have the possibility of ending up being enslaved, and I really do feel that slaver is a potential development of we enter a state of anarchy.

Not to mention the greatly increased possibility of invasion by foreign country.

 

[cmpr94x]

If we had an anarchy, how would we prevent crime? Would it be possible to establish a police force? What would be the motivation for people to work? There would be no help for anyone unless friends helped out. People are intrigued because they are just speculating on how the life would work without any major authority.

 

[marthanoob]

If we had an anarchy, how would we prevent crime? Would it be possible to establish a police force? What would be the motivation for people to work? There would be no help for anyone unless friends helped out. People are intrigued because they are just speculating on how the life would work without any major authority.

Actually many anarchists have thought that through. But most means of defense rely on some sort of propaganda by the deed (mass resistance).
The problem I see with this is the monumental task of uniting an anarchist society.
I understand that people probably do feel an intrinsic need for unity after large-scale division, but without an alternative reason to unify (such as kinship or religious beliefs), I doubt that strong enough of unity can form.

 

[Aesir]

Anarchy relies on perfect conditions to survive, a military take over or just a high influx of crime make the system fall apart.

So what if the people ban together to crack down on crime? You still need a system to punish them, which would mirror some form of government. It's just a system that falls apart sooner or later.

 

[Crimson King]

If we had an anarchy, how would we prevent crime? Would it be possible to establish a police force? What would be the motivation for people to work? There would be no help for anyone unless friends helped out. People are intrigued because they are just speculating on how the life would work without any major authority.

The police force is the biggest reason why people want anarchy. The police is the biggest joke in our society because we are taking individuals who either A. couldn't make it in college, B. didn't want to use their degree otherwise, or C. people who just want power and giving them the ability to enforce the law as they see fit.

In an anarchist society, you defend your own land.

 

[AltF4]

Aesir is right, it can never work today.

The moment you abolish government, you'll get invaded by another country.

It just can't work.

 

[Mewter]

In anarchist society, it would be every man for himself.
Let's say that you have a million (random number) people in a country. Let's say... the U.S.
When thrown into Anarchy, every person who has land would have his or her own country, in a sense. You would be responsible entirely for yourself and your "territory". If you wanted to work with another person in a group with even the tiniest set of rules...
Bam. There goes your anarchy. You now have government. Terroristic persons would "rally" other ill-willing people, and the chance of them taking over a part of the U.S. would be large, making them more powerful. It's either that people(being naturally social) group together, or perish. Now, the less people in an area, the less the chance of grouping, unless they want to trade from territory to territory. It is inevitable that a government is formed again, in some respects.
At least, that's how I see it.

 

[manhunter098]

Well I mean if you think about it, we are social creatures, we cannot survive as effectively in a truly anarchist society because then society itself, which is based not so much on rules but what people should do, ceases to exist. In reality we wont ever reach that state, the closest we could get to it is tribalism, but even that to a degree would limit efficiency unless the different tribes worked together, and well eventually we would assimilate into what would effectively be a populous controlled by the leaders of each tribe, so we would be back to government again.

A police force is at least in my opinion a good thing. We need people to assume different roles to better society. True right now I would agree with CK, the police we have is a joke, but we do need a police force.

 

[RDK]

Well I mean if you think about it, we are social creatures, we cannot survive as effectively in a truly anarchist society because then society itself, which is based not so much on rules but what people should do, ceases to exist. In reality we wont ever reach that state, the closest we could get to it is tribalism, but even that to a degree would limit efficiency unless the different tribes worked together, and well eventually we would assimilate into what would effectively be a populous controlled by the leaders of each tribe, so we would be back to government again.

A police force is at least in my opinion a good thing. We need people to assume different roles to better society. True right now I would agree with CK, the police we have is a joke, but we do need a police force.

Human's aren't truly social creatures; more like mildly gregarious. That's why government and economic policies like communism haven't worked and never will.

Although the idea that a completely free market (with no government regulation) and the concept of individual properties trading and interacting of their own volition and self interest would be incredibly productive and nurturing to society as a whole, the idea of invading countries or even some of the larger parties taking military action against smaller parties would be too big a problem for true anarchism to ever work.

Government is necessary, but should only exist to protect the rights of the individual citezens with the least amount of regulation as humanly possible.

 

[manhunter098]

Human's aren't truly social creatures; more like mildly gregarious. That's why government and economic policies like communism haven't worked and never will.

Although the idea that a completely free market (with no government regulation) and the concept of individual properties trading and interacting of their own volition and self interest would be incredibly productive and nurturing to society as a whole, the idea of invading countries or even some of the larger parties taking military action against smaller parties would be too big a problem for true anarchism to ever work.

Government is necessary, but should only exist to protect the rights of the individual citezens with the least amount of regulation as humanly possible.

I would stand by the assertion that humans are social animals. We lived in tribes when we first appeared on the planet and our current state of society is the result of agriculture, we havent really advanced too much socially with the exception of a now vast number of communication tools. But either way humans work together for the good of the many in most cases. While the good of the many may not be the intention behind why we work together we are undoubtedly more productive when working with other humans than we are on our own.

 

[marthanoob]

Human's aren't truly social creatures; more like mildly gregarious. That's why government and economic policies like communism haven't worked and never will.

Although the idea that a completely free market (with no government regulation) and the concept of individual properties trading and interacting of their own volition and self interest would be incredibly productive and nurturing to society as a whole, the idea of invading countries or even some of the larger parties taking military action against smaller parties would be too big a problem for true anarchism to ever work.

Government is necessary, but should only exist to protect the rights of the individual citezens with the least amount of regulation as humanly possible.

I would agree with manhunter. Although your personality may lead you to think otherwise, I think humans are inherently social. There is no way to prove this, but empirical evidence allows us to safely make this inference.

 

[Aesir]

Say what?

Humans aren't social creatures? since when. Ever since our species first showed up we've been social creatures. In the stone age we existed in small hunter gatherer clans, the fact that through out our entire history we've always had the drive to live together is evidence of that.

Communism doesn't work because it's self refuting and failed to provide proper incentives to take on larger roles in the community.

The Hospital example for instance:
You have say A CNA, A Nurse, and a Doctor.

CNA makes: 19,000 a year.
Nurse makes: 20,000 a year.
Doctor makes: 22,000 a year.

Why would you go through years of medical training to make just a few thousand more? The reward isn't worth the pay out. Sure they attempted to give Doctors incentives by giving them free cut in line passes for family supplies and what not. But would you spend 10 years in medical school to make three thousand more dollars then a less qualified person (by a large degree mind you)? Probably not.

Plus communism failed to realize that people like to own stuff, because it thinks that people are generally good at heart. While it might be true people are more willing to help someone if they don't feel obligated too. So if the Government says you have to share your land with someone else chances are you'll probably resist. However if you have the choice to help a fellow man out you might be more willing to do so, rather then feel obligated.


That's why communism fails.

 

[Mini Mic]

Anarchism is ridiculous. With no law, no government, I am free to do whatever I want. Who's to say I wouldn't start shooting randoms in the street if I had a particularly bad day? We can't rely on morality as the sole source of social defense. John Locke (philosopher not Lost character ) makes a good point about everyone being born free with natural right. If a man chooses to give up his natural rights for civil rights to attain security of the group it is his choice to do so. If you don't like the government then move somewhere else.