anarchy is stupid. who agrees?

[arbitor]

anarchy is stupid in so many ways i dont know where to start. i doubt there are many on this site who support it becuase most people are not ignorant to their freedoms. if you disagree than give me your reasons. ive done this many times and the result has always been the same.

[dahermit]

If you lived alone on a tropical island you would chose anarchy(no government) would you not? If you lived with another person on a tropical island what form of government would you chose? How many people do you need before you would have to chose a government? Could a "town meeting" where everyone is equal suffice for a government?

[9sublime]

Anarchy is the best system in a world when everyone works within expected moral standards because it gives total freedom. However, the whole reason we have laws is because this is not the case and people break them, effecting others freedom and rights.

The government itself is infringing upon your freedom and take your rights, its just that a good government does it less than a society where people are free to murder and steal.

[all_arm]

as 9sublime said, anarchy is actually the BEST system you could hope for: the lack of any "system" at all. unfortunately, in practice, people don't tend to 'play nice' without laws to keep them in line.

[arbitor]

exactly. you can not trust people to govern themselves without limits. all that would result would be mass murder and chaos not to mention the inevitable reforming of governments which under these circumstances would probably be dictatorships. anarchy may seem nice in theory but it would NEVER EVER work, EVER. so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality. this shining future they want is unattainable as long as we have human nature (which you cant get rid of)

[dahermit]

exactly. you can not trust people to govern themselves without limits. all that would result would be mass murder and chaos not to mention the inevitable reforming of governments which under these circumstances would probably be dictatorships. anarchy may seem nice in theory but it would NEVER EVER work, EVER. so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality. this shining future they want is unattainable as long as we have human nature (which you cant get rid of)
"...so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality..."
Who is promoting anarchy? I thought the movement disappeared in the early-middle 1900's. And, what form of government do you suggest is better?

[9sublime]

Authoritarian apparently.

[Irishone21]

I wish we were mature enough for anarchy. At the very least, we should have a government that actively LIMITS laws, to the very minimum.

[arbitor]

its really not a matter of maturity. its a matter of moral perfection. you would need everyone agreeing on what is moraly correct and have everyone obey them. in order for it to work we would have to be moraly flawless. so saying we are not mature enough is implying that someday we will be able to pull off anarchy and still keep the society of man afloat. anarchy is simpley an attempt to make the perfect world. all attempts to make a perfect world (hitler, musilini and communism) only made it worse.

[9sublime]

Yeah, I agree with you arbitor. But also I agree with irishone that we need to roll back government in many respects because its far too intrusive and controlling.

[The Scotsman]

There is something that you guys may have overlooked and that is the apparent anarchy due to the ineffectiveness of (inter alia) government. Organisations (e.g. companies, NGOs or governments) can become so large and unwieldy that it makes effective descision making almost impossible thus atrophy. From such atrophy lawlessness can evolve due to ineffective governance, you don't have to look far as most of Africa exists like this! Zimbabwe is a classic example - Governed anarchy.

[dahermit]

There is something that you guys may have overlooked and that is the apparent anarchy due to the ineffectiveness of (inter alia) government. Organisations (e.g. companies, NGOs or governments) can become so large and unwieldy that it makes effective descision making almost impossible thus atrophy. From such atrophy lawlessness can evolve due to ineffective governance, you don't have to look far as most of Africa exists like this! Zimbabwe is a classic example - Governed anarchy.
Whew! As I was reading this I though you were talking about the U.S. government. And in particular, the New Orleans Katrina incident; government at its best.

[9sublime]

Admittedly, in the age we live in now with the internet being absoloutley everywhere, the idea of a centralised government is not just dangerous because of this very technology, but ultimatly redundant.

[vyo476]

Caution: Written while under the influence of extreme cynicism.

all that would result would be mass murder and chaos

So?

not to mention the inevitable reforming of governments which under these circumstances would probably be dictatorships.

Not necessarily, to both counts.

anarchy may seem nice in theory but it would NEVER EVER work, EVER.

Depends on what you want it to work for. I've known a few anarchists, most of them don't give a **** about a "bright, shiny, perfect" future. They don't see a state of anarchy as being utopia - just fair.

so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality. this shining future they want is unattainable as long as we have human nature

Was someone around here promoting anarchy?

Is this a direct response to a specific group or statement?

Or did you just wake up the other day and say to yourself, "gee, today I'll condemn anarchy"?

(which you cant get rid of)

Obviously you've never read any George Orwell.

[arbitor]

1) what do you mean so? does mass death mean nothing to you?
2) people will seek protection. it starts out as clans or gangs then it becomes bigger and stronger and there will be power struggles and someone will rise.
3)they are idiots. that is not a fair world. the strong praying on the helpless is not fair. that is evil and stupid.
4) noone on this website has but i thought it might be interesting to discuss.
5) all evidence proves human nature is evil. no i dont read his books. i dont care to.

[vyo476]

1) what do you mean so? does mass death mean nothing to you?

If it did, would you have anything more constructive to say then, "well you're an idiot then!"? You started a thread on anarchy and I responded the way most of the anarchists I've known would have. If you can't respond in kind, I'd have to wonder why you'd bother starting up the debate in the first place.

But I'll play devil's advocate. Let's say I don't care about other people dying in massive numbers. They're not my problem, after all.

2) people will seek protection. it starts out as clans or gangs then it becomes bigger and stronger and there will be power struggles and someone will rise.

And you know this...how?

3)they are idiots. that is not a fair world. the strong praying on the helpless is not fair. that is evil and stupid.

Law of the jungle, my friend. Each individual surviving entirely on his or her own merits without any social structure to support those incapable of doing for themselves.

4) noone on this website has but i thought it might be interesting to discuss.

You mean rail against, don't you?

In order to refute another person's point of view, you must first understand it. Do you understand anarchy? Do you understand anarchists?

5) all evidence proves human nature is evil. no i dont read his books. i dont care to.

"Evil" is a contrived metaphysical concept, an invention of the human mind, mildly subjective year to year and completely subjective between time periods. What is "evil" for one person could very well not be "evil" for another. A society that values anarchy, for instance, would probably not believe human nature to be "evil."

As authors go, Orwell is one of the most brilliant of the 20th Century. What do you read instead?

[arbitor]

1) this mass murder and chaos will effect you becuase you will be attacked and robbed as well. this will effect everyone. you wouldnt have any food or stores. you would struggle to survive and you would live in terrible poverty most likeley
2)uhhh...becuase people dont want to die?
3) the world is a much better place if we work together. its like the stone soup story. they all benefit by working together to make things better. every man for himself wont work. noone will prosper.

[arbitor]

4) anarchy is simple. the mentality is: lets all do what ever we want to without any laws.
5) cs lewis. he was brilliant too. and he believed human nature is evil. have you ever read "screwtape letters"?

[vyo476]

1) this mass murder and chaos will effect you becuase you will be attacked and robbed as well. this will effect everyone. you wouldnt have any food or stores. you would struggle to survive and you would live in terrible poverty most likeley

I'm "attacked" and "robbed" every day anyway. The difference is that you feel like this would be worse.

2)uhhh...becuase people dont want to die?

You may want to read up a little more on the nature of human socialization.

3) the world is a much better place if we work together. its like the stone soup story. they all benefit by working together to make things better. every man for himself wont work. noone will prosper.

The world is **** one way or the other. "Working together" just creates new problems. "Prosperity" is subjective; my singular goal in life may well be to live in the woods, killing my own food, without any human interference.

4) anarchy is simple. the mentality is: lets all do what ever we want to without any laws.

Nothing is simple.

Go deeper. The statement above does not demonstrate that you understand anarchy any more than reading a movie synopsis would mean you understand the movie.

5) cs lewis. he was brilliant too. and he believed human nature is evil. have you ever read "screwtape letters"?

I don't believe that one's on my bookshelf.

No response to the subjectivity of "evil"?

[Mare Tranquillity]

anarchy is stupid in so many ways i dont know where to start. i doubt there are many on this site who support it becuase most people are not ignorant to their freedoms. if you disagree than give me your reasons. ive done this many times and the result has always been the same.

I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade, but could YOU define what YOU mean by anarchy, I find in my associations with people that the word is used in many ways.

Your signature line included marriage equality as called for in the US Constitution, is that "anarchy" in some way in your eyes?

[Mare Tranquillity]

exactly. you can not trust people to govern themselves without limits. all that would result would be mass murder and chaos not to mention the inevitable reforming of governments which under these circumstances would probably be dictatorships. anarchy may seem nice in theory but it would NEVER EVER work, EVER. so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality. this shining future they want is unattainable as long as we have human nature (which you cant get rid of)

It can work and it has worked in tribal groups and religious groups where the people were philosophically in accord or where they were beset from the outside by social or environmental threats that encouraged cooperation.

Again, I think a close definition is going to be key to you making your point.

[Mare Tranquillity]

its really not a matter of maturity. its a matter of moral perfection. you would need everyone agreeing on what is moraly correct and have everyone obey them. in order for it to work we would have to be moraly flawless. so saying we are not mature enough is implying that someday we will be able to pull off anarchy and still keep the society of man afloat. anarchy is simpley an attempt to make the perfect world. all attempts to make a perfect world (hitler, musilini and communism) only made it worse.

So what? How many failures did it take before people learned to fly? Or end slavery? Or conquer disease? It's called evolution because it is change over time, and this very change makes it possible that humans are perfectable creatures. Argue for your limitations and they will be yours.

Isn't Nature anarchy? Plants and animals have no laws and no enforcement beyond the limits of their own capabilities, why would it be different with humans? The fact that we have have more capabilities would simply broaden the areas activitiy--doesn't mean it would be bad, unless YOU have an agenda and want YOUR version of "law and order" to be the one imposed on everyone.

[Mare Tranquillity]

1) what do you mean so? does mass death mean nothing to you?
2) people will seek protection. it starts out as clans or gangs then it becomes bigger and stronger and there will be power struggles and someone will rise.
3)they are idiots. that is not a fair world. the strong praying on the helpless is not fair. that is evil and stupid.
4) noone on this website has but i thought it might be interesting to discuss.
5) all evidence proves human nature is evil. no i dont read his books. i dont care to.

1)So you DO have an agenda, you want the world to be fair and death to have meaning. Join a church.

3)Nature is stupid and evil?

5)The bolded statement above is false. A "preponderance" of evidence "suggests" perhaps, but not "all" or "proves". There are many examples of good people in the world.

[The Scotsman]

I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade, but could YOU define what YOU mean by anarchy, I find in my associations with people that the word is used in many ways.
......spot on MT!


Just a thought.....Do you recall the experiment where a group of volunteers are put into a free space with no other instructions other than to move around. Eventually the group is moving in the same direction at the same speed and even instep! Out of chaos comes order?

The human being is a herd animal, it is a heard animal not out of any political or social obligation but an anthropological necessity – survival. Anarchist and anarchism I assume is a term given to those that like to live in a state of chaos – a bit like my 12 year old son!! I digress..... Non-conformism has always been attractive to some but when you have a group of non-conformists all in the same group inhabiting the same space they eventually evolve and out of pure human nature stratify into the usual heirachical structures that they rejected in the first place.

[dahermit]

It can work and it has worked in tribal groups and religious groups where the people were philosophically in accord or where they were beset from the outside by social or environmental threats that encouraged cooperation.

Again, I think a close definition is going to be key to you making your point.
I respectfully disagree, I know of only one tribe of people that did/do not have a government. Even religious groups have a government(recognized leaders that constitute government). Even troops of baboons have a leader(alpha male) and high ranking males (privileged), and low ranking males and females, and infants(dictatorship).
Some religious groups might have a town meeting style democracy, but that is government not anarchy(no government).

[Mare Tranquillity]

I respectfully disagree, I know of only one tribe of people that did/do not have a government. Even religious groups have a government(recognized leaders that constitute government). Even troops of baboons have a leader(alpha male) and high ranking males (privileged), and low ranking males and females, and infants(dictatorship).
Some religious groups might have a town meeting style democracy, but that is government not anarchy(no government).

This is exactly why I asked the OP to define anarchy, it can be used more than one way. If a group of women live in a barracks they will eventually all ovulate at the same approximate time. The dominant female will be the one who sets the standard through a process we have not yet identified. Is that a form of government? Dominant mares in a horse herd constitute a government? Many indigenous people's used consensus, is that considered government? One can find hierarchies in almost all groups of animals, I'm not sure if that can be considered government or not. I have yet to see a definition of what we're discussing.

[arbitor]

we are discussing a world without leaders, limits or rules. we are talking about a world that's only rule is survival of the fittest and where the helpless are brutaly killed and weeded and humans revert to animalistic behavior. tell me, is that the kind of world you want for your children?

[Mare Tranquillity]

we are discussing a world without leaders, limits or rules. we are talking about a world that's only rule is survival of the fittest and where the helpless are brutaly killed and weeded and humans revert to animalistic behavior. tell me, is that the kind of world you want for your children?

Okay, if that's all, then why are you against gay marriage?

[arbitor]

what? what does that have to do with this?

[Mare Tranquillity]

what? what does that have to do with this?

Your signature line.

[dahermit]

This is exactly why I asked the OP to define anarchy, it can be used more than one way. If a group of women live in a barracks they will eventually all ovulate at the same approximate time. The dominant female will be the one who sets the standard through a process we have not yet identified. Is that a form of government? Dominant mares in a horse herd constitute a government? Many indigenous people's used consensus, is that considered government? One can find hierarchies in almost all groups of animals, I'm not sure if that can be considered government or not. I have yet to see a definition of what we're discussing.By my definition of anarchy:1) Women- not because they will ovulate at the same time, but because the "dominate woman"by definition, will have social influence/control the others will not have.
2) Horses- They have a "pecking order" therefore are not free to do what they want. They are being governed.
3) Tribe- Consensus is equivalent to a town meeting; town meetings are the basis for township government in New England.

Again, this is only by my definition.

Nevertheless, what the original poster did not say, but should have, is: If anarchy is so bad, what form of government is better. To which I would have answered: All forms of governments become more corrupt and become less beneficial to the people, the bigger and more complicated they get. In fact, they can become harmful to the people. For instance, in New Orleans during Katrina the police stopped a group of black citizens from fleeing the city and entering an area of the city that was not predominately black, supposedly to prevent looting (better to have them drown than have looting?).

[Mare Tranquillity]

By my definition of anarchy:1) Women- not because they will ovulate at the same time, but because the "dominate woman"by definition, will have social influence/control the others will not have.
2) Horses- They have a "pecking order" therefore are not free to do what they want. They are being governed.
3) Tribe- Consensus is equivalent to a town meeting; town meetings are the basis for township government in New England.

Again, this is only by my definition.

Nevertheless, what the original poster did not say, but should have, is: If anarchy is so bad, what form of government is better. To which I would have answered: All forms of governments become more corrupt and become less beneficial to the people, the bigger and more complicated they get. In fact, they can become harmful to the people. For instance, in New Orleans during Katrina the police stopped a group of black citizens from fleeing the city and entering an area of the city that was not predominately black, supposedly to prevent looting (better to have them drown than have looting?).

So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition. Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect.

[SavageDreamer]

Anarchy can exist ounce u get the 6 billion people of the world to be respectful and responsible.

Anarchy means u have to have everyone self govern and work together without the need for a central organizing body.

Possible in an agrarian society but I don't see it happening in a world of 6 billion chaotic irresponsible greedy and selfish people.

Even the call for anarchy is one made from a selfish perspective

[9sublime]

Can I throw out a kind of case study here?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/belgium-approaches-150-days-without-government-399008.html

In a world with so much communication with the internet, the centralised government is kind of proved to be unneccessary here. While Belgium obviously still had government, it didn't have it in the traditional sense because it had nobody at the helm.

[dahermit]

So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition. Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect.

"...So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically..." Never said that. The only anarchy I know of is one person alone an an island... Have you confused my post with Arbitor's?

"So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition." All troops of baboons, monkeys, (less with banobos) have an authoritarian structure that I described, not based on cooperation but intimidation by the dominant male and other high ranking males.

"...Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect..." I agree...with the higher evolved life forms anyway. Any group of people that tried to live in a live-and-let-live state would soon become pray for predatory people