What's the Point of Anarchy? - General

[QUOTE=Kingy_who;15469027]why do you think no country in the world has seriously tried anarchy[/QUOTE] Oh it's because the guys at the top, the government would lose their power. The people who would lead the coup in support of anarchy, saying they love anarchy would just instate a different type of government and make themselves leader of the country. And then it's exactly how it was before, except with new leaders. Anarchy will never really be achieved without war or nuclear disaster.

As I read in a YouTube comment once, and it has stuck with me ever since: Anarchy is pointless. Eventually, people will form groups with leaders, which will grow into more leaders, and overtime become a government.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15469039]Except Somalia [editline]06:54PM[/editline] And Somalia is doing so well![/QUOTE] Somalia has a government just no one listens to it and the army/cops are afraid to do anything.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;15468597]It doesn't make any sense. Anarchy is a total absense of government. Without government, there is disorder. Where there is disorder, people DIE. Also, there really is no way to establish anarchy, because even if you totally get rid of government, people are going to make up their own rules, their own laws, and their own system of rule. People will just build up another government. Anarchy, in my opinion, is utterly pointless. Discuss.[/QUOTE] The big idea of anarchy is that people shouldn't have to submit to a Government and should just look after their own. Of course, that'd just mean subsistence farming and so other schools of thought spring up, saying people should be governed by their trade unions or just that the Government should concern itself with some things and then let people do what they want when it comes to the free market etc. So anarchy =/= NO GOVERNMENT LOL; it's a fair bit more complicated than that. I feel that people being people any sort of anarchist movement wouldn't work because as soon as you hit your 40s you'd quite like a Government to look after most things so you can potter about the garden when you're older and not concern yourself with such things on a day to day basis.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15468986]ITT people don't realize anarchy is not a permanent state, instead a temporary transitional phase that only exists until a new form of law and government is established. Anarchy does not last.[/QUOTE] I already said that a while ago.

Anarchy is an impossibility. Imagine, will you, a completely desolate and ruined city, somewhere in the future. All forms of the governement has seaced and desisted, and complete anarchy runs the wicked polis. Everything has been stripped bare, from convenience stores to the people too weak to protect themselves from the stronger ones. Wild and fierce gangs run the streets, battling other, weaker gangs for more control, resources and po Wait. Shit. Did I say gangs? Why, that's a form of democracy.

In the mind, scenarios happen however you wish. Over a huge span of time, people came from an anarchistic way of life and settled into government, probably because they preferred that over getting smacked over the head with a big heavy club at dinner time. With government comes the retaliation of the weak. A reversal of kill or be killed into kill [i]and[/i] be killed. Lawlessness or lawfulness, people have survived. The only difference is in what manner survival takes form.

[QUOTE=Lankist;15468986]ITT people don't realize anarchy is not a permanent state, instead a temporary transitional phase that only exists until a new form of law and government is established. Anarchy does not last.[/QUOTE] No one said anything about anarchy being some kind of actual working system, this is all hypothetical, therefore it's not such a big leap to assume for a moment that we talking about some kind of prolonged anarchy. Also I'm using "we" quite liberally, because I think I'm the only one here that supports (or understands) anarchy in the slightest. Also I don't really support anarchy, as I do believe in some sort of protection from some basic, large threats. But I would support micro-anarchy (a concept of mine).

Arguably the closest our species has ever come to true anarchy is near the beginning of our history (and most of the time until the present, actually - hundreds of thousands of years) when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The largest organizational unit would be the family (or maybe the tribe, composed of 2 or 3 families) and essentially, as in nature, the strongest would rule.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469182]No one said anything about anarchy being some kind of actual working system, this is all hypothetical, therefore it's not such a big leap to assume for a moment that we talking about some kind of prolonged anarchy. Also I'm using "we" quite liberally, because I think I'm the only one here that supports (or understands) anarchy in the slightest.[/QUOTE] Live in Somalia then.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfF-nxjDi0[/media] He's a bit crazy, but it's a good explanation of what Anarchy. He's also said at some point that there's two sides of Anarchy, one being destruction, the other being creation. Destruction cleans the slate for creation to begin anew. It's not people in punk rock get ups running around with tire irons beating your grandma to death. But it's an impossible ideal that falls short inbetween the Destruction phase and the Creation phase.

And drop the computer

[QUOTE=Kalibos;15469191]Arguably the closest our species has ever come to true anarchy is near the beginning of our history (and most of the time until the present, actually - hundreds of thousands of years) when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The largest organizational unit would be the family (or maybe the tribe, composed of 2 or 3 families) and essentially, as in nature, the strongest would rule.[/QUOTE] That would be more like communism, since they shared everything within the tribe/family.

[QUOTE=Kalibos;15469191]Arguably the closest our species has ever come to true anarchy is near the beginning of our history (and most of the time until the present, actually - hundreds of thousands of years) when we were nomadic hunter-gatherers. The largest organizational unit would be the family (or maybe the tribe, composed of 2 or 3 families) and essentially, as in nature, the strongest would rule.[/QUOTE] But I don't want the strongest to rule, because then the strongest will rule. And if the strongest rule, the weak get not say. I'm probably one of the weak. From my perspective, that situation is unfavourable. And as only the strong will survive, there's a lot of weak who won't like it. Besides, when we had anarchy, how much culture did we have? Everyone was busy trying to look after their family, so they had no time to, say, smelt some metals and make tools or paint a beautiful painting (a few daubings, since they couldn't advance) or synthesise a new drug compound or run a power plant or read and write books. I quite like my lack of anarchy, thank you very much. (I'm guessing you're for anarchy, but you edited your post just as I quoted so I'm not sure)

[QUOTE=TrulliLulli;15468678]this. why did you make this thread? don't like your government? overthrow it and start a better one.[/QUOTE] A bunch of morons burning everything in sight will run a country better than politicians of course.

My idea of ideal anarchy would be where the government protects you from getting killed/assaulted/raped/whatever, but only on public land. On your own private property, you can do anything you want, you could even have any laws you want, as long as all persons on your property have been disclosed of the risks/rules. The only time the government deals with private affairs would be in the form of lawsuits, for any grievances due to improper discloser, or certain legal rights granted to the owners of the private property, including the right to opt-in for any state/federal laws, and private rights, like trespassing.

[QUOTE=CrazyMoron;15468883]What would happen is that the people would set up small councils and govern themselves. Total democracy.[/QUOTE] Total democracy isn't good democracy, since the majority can suppress the minorities. For example: Imagine a black guy lives in a area where the majority are white and racist. The majority could then cast a vote and he would could get imprisoned, hurt, killed, whatever. That is the problem with not having a centralized law system.

[QUOTE=markg06;15469398]A bunch of morons burning everything in sight will run a country better than politicians of course.[/QUOTE] That is not what anarchists believe... Anarchy is for people who aren't afraid; afraid of pain, hunger, death. Just because you are afraid of those things doesn't make them retarded.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469462]That is not what anarchists believe... Anarchy is for people who aren't afraid; afraid of pain, hunger, death. Just because you are afraid of those things doesn't make them retarded.[/QUOTE] Anyone who isn't afraid of hunger, pain, and death has something seriously wrong with them.

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;15469508]Anyone who isn't afraid of hunger, pain, and death has something seriously wrong with them.[/QUOTE] Says the civilization-ist. Besides, the point is not really that they aren't afraid, but that they don't hold their peace of mind above their freedom. I'm afraid of being shot, but that doesn't mean I feel it necessary to tell everyone they can't own a gun.

Anarchy would work if their wasn't scare resources and the like. If we have to all live from scare resources which aren't managed (like they are to a degree today) even Anarchists with the best intentions may eventually have to fight to survive, which, in my knowledge, is not a key tenet of the ideal. The point of Anarchy is to allow any and every man the ultimate freedom to do as they wish. However, they must have rules, you simply can't kill someone else because that is your freedom, they have to remember everyon's right and freedom aswell. Delicious Pasta gives a basic idea... [quote]# "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.[/quote]

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469430]My idea of ideal anarchy would be where the government protects you from getting killed/assaulted/raped/whatever, but only on public land. On your own private property, you can do anything you want, you could even have any laws you want, as long as all persons on your property have been disclosed of the risks/rules. The only time the government deals with private affairs would be in the form of lawsuits, for any grievances due to improper discloser, or certain legal rights granted to the owners of the private property, including the right to opt-in for any state/federal laws, and private rights, like trespassing.[/QUOTE] That isn't anarchy. Anarchy is a complete LACK of government. So much for being the only one who understands anarchy!

To all of you who say that anarchists are a bunch of dumb kids: How many of you have actually read a book on Anarchist ideals? Personally, i have. Although it does require a lot of co-operation from absolutley everyone (which i know will NEVER happen) the ideals behind it are interesting. Yeah, sure, you could go rape someone, but then instead of having the police come arrest you - you'd have their family coming to kill you. What i'm trying to say is: Before you dismiss an idea as a load of bullshit that whiney kids follow, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Deadollie;15469603]To all of you who say that anarchists are a bunch of dumb kids: How many of you have actually read a book on Anarchist ideals? Personally, i have. Although it does require a lot of co-operation from absolutley everyone (which i know will NEVER happen) the ideals behind it are interesting. Yeah, sure, you could go rape someone, but then instead of having the police come arrest you - you'd have their family coming to kill you. What i'm trying to say is: Before you dismiss an idea as a load of bullshit that whiney kids follow, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Haven't you ever watched Mad Max. That isn't how shit works.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;15469545]Anarchy would work if their wasn't scare resources and the like. If we have to all live from scare resources which aren't managed (like they are to a degree today) even Anarchists with the best intentions may eventually have to fight to survive, which, in my knowledge, is not a key tenet of the ideal. The point of Anarchy is to allow any and every man the ultimate freedom to do as they wish. However, they must have rules, you simply can't kill someone else because that is your freedom, they have to remember everyon's right and freedom aswell. Delicious Pasta gives a basic idea...[/QUOTE] As you may have noticed while typing that, that doesn't make any sense. Anarchy is not about "la la la we all live in harmony, here have a cup of sugar neighbor" Anarchy is REAL freedom, which means the right to hurt anyone you want.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469462]That is not what anarchists believe... Anarchy is for people who aren't afraid; afraid of pain, hunger, death. Just because you are afraid of those things doesn't make them retarded.[/QUOTE]Anarchy is for people who want control of everything. Greedy bastards.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469632]As you may have noticed while typing that, that doesn't make any sense. Anarchy is not about "la la la we all live in harmony, here have a cup of sugar neighbor" Anarchy is REAL freedom, which means the right to hurt anyone you want.[/QUOTE] Uhh, there are no rights in anarchy. And you can hurt anyone you want now, only you're going to get hurt back.

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469430]My idea of ideal anarchy would be where the government protects you from getting killed/assaulted/raped/whatever, but only on public land. On your own private property, you can do anything you want, you could even have any laws you want, as long as all persons on your property have been disclosed of the risks/rules. The only time the government deals with private affairs would be in the form of lawsuits, for any grievances due to improper discloser, or certain legal rights granted to the owners of the private property, including the right to opt-in for any state/federal laws, and private rights, like trespassing.[/QUOTE] How would the Government handle land sales? What if someone's killed on public land and dragged onto private land, and then the owner doesn't allow an investigation? What if someone kills someone else on their land, then declares that land their private property and established their rules there? This is ludicrous! [QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469462]That is not what anarchists believe... Anarchy is for people who aren't afraid; afraid of pain, hunger, death. Just because you are afraid of those things doesn't make them retarded.[/QUOTE] Yes you are! Look at Somalia - they've got pure anarchy. Now look at all the people fleeing in terror. Anarchy isn't pretty or clever. [QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469540]Says the civilization-ist. Besides, the point is not really that they aren't afraid, but that they don't hold their peace of mind above their freedom. I'm afraid of being shot, but that doesn't mean I feel it necessary to tell everyone they can't own a gun.[/QUOTE] But you're not free if you're fighting for survival! And that's not even a vaguely correct comparison. Outlawing guns =/= "Oh hey guys! Yeah, we're going to set up a bunch of laws so people don't pillage and murder, and also create a system of social welfare so vulnerable people can be looked after, and then maybe we'll fund research into all sorts of things to make your life easier and then, if you're good, we'll hook up a national grid and then maintain it."

Whilst I am an Optimist in the sense that i believe Communism and Anarchy could work given a fair crack of the whip; when your look around at people in the world makes you think it wouldn't work, simply because people don't want what is best for everyone, only themselves, and if that means treading on other people so be it. [QUOTE=ryandaniels;15469632]As you may have noticed while typing that, that doesn't make any sense. Anarchy is not about "la la la we all live in harmony, here have a cup of sugar neighbor" Anarchy is REAL freedom, which means the right to hurt anyone you want.[/QUOTE] What is the point of Anarchy if you end up with the powerful, heavily armed dictating to the other Anarchists. Allowing killing and violence against eachother in an Anarchist society is crazy imo, it undermines the whole philosophy somewhat.

Hurting people in anarchy is a pussy move