Anarchy

[SuSa]

Link to original post: [drupal=1628]Anarchy [/drupal]



I have been getting into arguments over Anarchy with many people - so I have decided to make my standing about governments and people. The delicate balance between those in power and those who think they have power.

For those unfamiliar with Anarchy here are some link's and quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

• No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
• "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
• "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
• "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
• A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
• Independent from rule or authority.
• Legitimacy of a state is gained through consent, not through coercion.

Please note that there are different beliefs on Anarchism as well. Two major forms being:

Anarcho-Communism (The one I do not share beliefs with)

Anarchist communism advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy through which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.

and
Anarcho-Capitalism (The one I share beliefs with)

Anarcho-capitalism (a form of free-market anarchism),[1] is an individualist anarchist[2] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money is privately produced in an open market. Because personal and economic activities are regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather than through politics, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would be rendered moot.

Example of working Anarchism (However Anarcho-Communism...)

Mali - The Gift Economy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELNsQdSMOc

This is a form of living that does not involve nor need a government, and therefore could be considered an Anarchical system. Could you imagine a world like this, rather then one small, poor town? Everyone gave knowing but not expecting something to come in return. They gave simply because the other needed.



_______________

Anarchism can work outside of just theory. Everything is better in theory, so yes it will have it's flaws. But so does a democratic government. A democracy is almost perfect in theory - but far worst in realistic scenarios.

So then let's discuss?

 

[L666]

If implemented: excellent, surprising. If not: expected, predictable.

 

[KnnySm3]

What about the whole deal that, ya know... the majority of people are jerks?

Instead of just posting links to what anarchism is, could you kindly ellaborate more on your own personal views?

 

[Eor]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232404

Unless you'd rather post here

Your comments don't seem to make sense. How can one know something is going to give something to them, but not expect it?

I found very little on Dama outside of that video, so what I'm going to say is only based on that video and concept of other gift-giving societies, but those societies are not about advancement, they're about basic tribal living. In that sort of society, people do not live in large, massive populations, but in close knit communities. There is a fallacy (I forget what it's called) about how just because something works in one area that it'll work in a larger area/everywhere. It's done a lot with economics.

 

[kong_korps]

I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Dont know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passe by cause

I wanna be anarchy !!!

aha just had to but ya idk about this... i love good ol' capitalism

 

[SuSa]

What about the whole deal that, ya know... the majority of people are jerks?

Instead of just posting links to what anarchism is, could you kindly ellaborate more on your own personal views?

Half my blog somehow got deleted. didn't really bother to check it.

So on my personal views, what specifically would you like to know? I don't feel like writing a wall of text that will get the response of "tl;dr"

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=232404

Unless you'd rather post here

Your comments don't seem to make sense. How can one know something is going to give something to them, but not expect it?

I found very little on Dama outside of that video, so what I'm going to say is only based on that video and concept of other gift-giving societies, but those societies are not about advancement, they're about basic tribal living. In that sort of society, people do not live in large, massive populations, but in close knit communities. There is a fallacy (I forget what it's called) about how just because something works in one area that it'll work in a larger area/everywhere. It's done a lot with economics.

Can I even post in the debate hall?

By expect, I mean like how a lot of teenagers do today. A friend may lend me $5, but expects me to pay them back in some way. A ride home, cheap lunch, etc. By "knowing" you'll be given to you're not expecting anything in return. You know that you'll be taken care of when needed. It's kind of hard to explain using words and I really can't think of a good example right now. So I'll shut up because at this moment I'm probably not even making sense with this example.

My cousin's more into Dama - so I'll message him seeing if he wants to debate his viewpoints and ideas on it.

I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Dont know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passe by cause

I wanna be anarchy !!!

aha just had to but ya idk about this... i love good ol' capitalism

Capitalism is a martket system, not a government. Look at Anacrho-Capitalism.

 

[KnnySm3]

So on my personal views, what specifically would you like to know? I don't feel like writing a wall of text that will get the response of "tl;dr"

Tell me how anarchism can work in your own personal perspective. (That is to say, in a large population).

And trust me, I'm not that kind of person that will just ignore someone if they type out a wall of text. If you go through the trouble of doing so then I will kindly return the favor and this can turn into a heated discussion or die out before it even begins.

It's up to you.

 

[Eor]

By expect, I mean like how a lot of teenagers do today. A friend may lend me $5, but expects me to pay them back in some way. A ride home, cheap lunch, etc. By "knowing" you'll be given to you're not expecting anything in return. You know that you'll be taken care of when needed. It's kind of hard to explain using words and I really can't think of a good example right now. So I'll shut up because at this moment I'm probably not even making sense with this example.

Not really, since you first said they'd expect to pay them back, then say that they don't expect anything in return the next sentence.

 

[Cherry64]

this would make a good debate hall topic
Anarchism or Government? If you cannot post in the debate hall want to make this a debate?

 

[Eor]

Yeah it takes time to get into the debate hall now

This place will probably suffice

 

[Cherry64]

Very Cool, Well in all Honesty SuSa I think Anarchy on a small scale will be 10 times better than any governed place.

REason why is taht we are all human, we don't like being wrong, and we All have different oppinions. a small group of people would be easier because you'd get to know them and respect their own beleifs, but a city running on Anarchism would be utter chaos. In All seriousness it'd probably end up being Hard-core Left/Right wingers trying to make something happen and have peopel ban together, which isn't agaisnt anarchy UNTIL someone stands out as a clear leader, if they are a group of people with common interests it's still considered Anarchy.

 

[Darkshadow7827]

^Agreed. Anarchy in a gift giving sense could work on a small scale, as if often is, in tribal areas, such as papua new guinea (cultural anthropology wasn't useless after all!). I think I know where you're coming from. You lend a friend $5, but don't expect them to repay you with $5 back. You know that some day when you need something, that friend will tend to you to return the favor. Then one day you'll tend to him. and it goes back and forth. I do not believe this would work on a large scale seeing as how the human component would deteriorate the situation. Humans tend to crave some sort of structure. Why follow the gift-giving structure when you take it with power. It's like you'd need to determine how many ducks can be bartered for a computer.

In essence, I feel that this anarchical system would evolve into a type of democracy or socialism. Doing something for someone only to receive a favor later > receiving goods from one another when needed > barter > barter on a large scale with different value > monetary system to represent those values (ie. 1 chicken =\= a gun; thus a tangible object is used to represent 5 chickens that the gun owner can redeem at any time) > capitalism or socialism.

There's probably a lot of holes in my belief. I might not even be addressing you opinion... O_o Well, that's my interpretation and response. (looks like cultural anthro and AP government do help out after all).

 

[Syde7]

I hate to necro this thread, but I was reading over your "debt" and thought I would take a glance at this since it was referenced.

I have to point out, that desiring a state of true anarchy is absolutely silly.

A state of anarchy, in theory and practice would be MISERABLE. Anarchy, in essence is the lack of *any* semblance of order. These "anachro-...." are merely flowery terms describing theorycraft. The fact that there are "rules" in place in any of the "anachro-...." scenarios is directly contradictory to the definition of anarchy.

In other words, Anarcy in the purest sense of ethics and government means that there ARE no rules, no 'standards'. By adapting anarchy into any of the aforementioned *******izations, means you are no longer dealing with anarchy.

Example 1A: In a state where anarchy exists, the ideas of "rights" are non-existent, as there is nothing to "protect" those rights. If I was hungry, I would go to someone's home and steal their food. If they resisted, I would kill them- all without impunity. Because that *IS* the definition of anarchy; an environment with NO rules or protection or central form of authority.

Some may reference tribal peoples, or small communities of nomads- but what they practice is NOT anarchy. Even in such simple environments, there is a "moral code" that is enforced by some sort of a "leader", or by the community itself. Ex: Tribesman A shouldn't steal from his fellow tribesman, and if he does he is punished for it. There is a "rule" and a "consequence" for breaking that rule.

The fundamental flaw of the whole kit-and-kaboodle, is it fails to take in human nature as a collective. If there is no gov or enforceable rules (a "town" of people who have adopted a moral code and enforce it, even in mob form... is in theory a type of government) then humans simply WILL NOT "be nice" and "give and not expect anything in return", heck... they probably won't "give" at all.

Think about it: If you were hungry... and there was no penalty for theft... you would just walk to a grocery store and loot it. The store owner would realize that you wouldn't pay, and therefore see no use in keeping it open, and would close it. It would boil down, utlimately to everyone being self-sufficient or relying on a close network of "friends", which is a-ok. The problem comes whenever someone who ISNT a part of this "group of friends" decides "I dont want to put in the effort for my own food" and so he ransacks the place, without any form of defined and measured impunity. The "friends" would be irked, and would seek their own form of justice which could be as mild as a literal slap on the wrist or as extreme as killing him... all without impunity.

In short; Anarchism on its own will probably *never* work, and if it did it would be a miserable existence- all because of the selfish nature of humanity and lack of codified rules to punish those whose selfishness overlaps to the detriment of others. Anything that "alters" anarchism to create some sort of "enforceable and unified" code renders it as a form of government or law, which is directly in conflict with the term Anarchy as it is expressed definitively in terms of ethics/government.

 

[Falconv1.0]

People like me is why anarchy doesn't work.

/thread

 

[§witch]

Obligatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmW...8CAFF5AB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=53

Also, anarcho-capitalism is much less feasible as a means of running a country. It's basically impossible because of corruption; which will always happen.

 

[East]

Obligatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmW...8CAFF5AB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=53

Also, anarcho-capitalism is much less feasible as a means of running a country. It's basically impossible because of corruption; which will always happen.

I was gonna say greed, but I guess corruption works too.

Falconv1.0's statement has some weight in it too. People think differently.

 

[El Nino]

Yes, and as we all know, governments are never corrupt.

 

[§witch]

I was gonna say greed, but I guess corruption works too.

Falconv1.0's statement has some weight in it too. People think differently.

I was thinking along the lines of corruption fueled by greed, so yes.

Yes, and as we all know, governments are never corrupt.

First of all, you don't seem to comprehend the ramifications of an anarchist society. Everything would be regulated by everyone, and just one person breaking that could result in a huge power imbalance where a few people end up running the whole country and making a ton of money. Yes, governments are all corrupt in their own way, but they still regulate the flow of the economy, which would not be in place in an anarchist society.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Yes, and as we all know, governments are never corrupt.

I hope you realize without some form of government I'd have killed at 40 people by now for getting in my way.

>_>

 

[Teran]

Corruption is a price to pay. A lesser evil for the greater good. Look at Somalia for Christ's sake. There's anarchy for you, really charming consequences.

Sure we can have anarchy guy, but I hope you have a good warface, and know how to fight. Dust off your swords and spears, get your bows and arrows ready. It's back to our tribal roots for humanity.

**** anarchy, anarchy is for mindless peasants, which is why the iron boot of the law stamps on their puny desires for no civilization.

 

[El Nino]

First of all, you don't seem to comprehend the ramifications of an anarchist society.

I've stated nothing about anarchism in the first place. I've merely pointed out that corruption exists in the state, that organized governments do not nullify corruption at the individual level. If they do reduce corruption at the individual level, they also elevate it at the organizational level. Corrupt individuals are limited by their personal resources; governments have access to greater resources, and the ramifications of their actions extend far beyond the individual level.

In short, corrupt governments deal out more damage than corrupt individuals. The question is then, would a large population of corrupt individuals be preferable to the tyranny of a corrupt state? Such variables are hard to quantify (presuming that they can be quantified at all), and I don't have an answer to that question.

they still regulate the flow of the economy, which would not be in place in an anarchist society.

Am I to take from this that you support regulated economies? If so, do you prefer socialism, communism, or regulated capitalism? Or something else? And do you therefore reject ideologies like libertarianism?

It's back to our tribal roots for humanity.

We've never left it, not really. The balance of power during the Cold War era was maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Our swords and spears are bigger, that's all.

**** anarchy, anarchy is for mindless peasants, which is why the iron boot of the law stamps on their puny desires for no civilization.

Authoritarian rule is probably a better fit for those with less individualist tendencies. My only reference points for this are a couple friends of mine who grew up in China. They're very bright, educated people, but they question nothing handed down from a higher authority. They seem to trust their government completely. They nod when I criticize American foreign or domestic policy, but they immediately get on the defense when I criticize their own government. On one hand, I know it's just a conditioned response. They would have faced reprimand back in their home country for saying similar things. On the other hand, I suspect that they honestly believe in their government's entitlement to dictate things in their own private lives. Not coming from that environment, the mere thought is stifling, to me.

I guess I haven't commented on anarchism at all. In my view, anarchism works only on an individual level. That is, absolute anarchy can be practiced best by those who seek out a solitary existence. I get the impression that when societies form, the consolidation of power is something that just happens. I don't think it can be stopped. The internal struggle then becomes one between the people and the state. The battle is constant, and personal freedom becomes then a thing allowed when the state deems it acceptable.