Thread: Anarchy

Originally Posted by juroara

I know where you're coming from, I believed in anarchy for about most of my life now. But there is a better form of government (or lack of thereof?) than anarchy - and I would call that the Natural Order

Would you mind elaborating on this? The way I see it this is the Natural Order, there's just a group of uniformed thugs who drew some imaginary lines on a map and said MINE. I don't really see anarchy as a style of governing things, but rather an observation of reality(government is a belief).

We currently have power structures in place under the pretense of creating order, however these structure create more dis-order than order. Now if these were voluntary structures, contractual structures vs forced structures like we have now, they would just fall away because people would just stop paying taxes and form new governments(or syndicates if you prefer). But we have no choice under the current system. If we resist the system we get thrown in jail.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Could you elaborate on putting people in power of the means of production? I don't want to make you write an essay, I'd just like to see where you're coming from.

CEO's aren't appointed by people they are going to have an effect on. I guess what I mean is that corporations should be transparent and we should have a say in how they carry out their operations and how the employ their policies.

Corporations and institutions that support them are usually highly secretive. Well they have to be because if American people were informed about what their richest corporations are doing they that'd be bad for them. It's not in their interest for us to know. It's easier if we're just mindless consumers with a forceshield over our heads our entire lives.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Wouldn't it be more honest to say that the current governments of said countries are operating under economic policies that stifle prosperity, improvement, and the standard of living? I don't doubt that there are government-corporation relationships (there are in the U.S., which currently runs under a neo-mercantilist/corporatist/facist-ish economic system - which might be a case against government itself), btw.

Indeed this is precisely the case. The people in power have huge influence on other governments through economics mainly, and when that fails they have military.

The US supports leaders of other countries that helps their corporations. Even if this means fascist military dictators and corrupt politicians in order to get what they want. Governments are not serving their purpose when they can be bought off like this.

You can control masses of people and governments by putting them massively into debt. Once this has happened they are at your service, they can be exploited, they can be kept poor, they can be blackmailed. And that's what it's all about know.

Empire building is no longer done by sword and shield, it's much much more effective through economics.

Originally Posted by Rainman

Well, I don't believe I'm over the top at all, and I believe you have backwards logic. Societies weren't created to prevent someone grabbing for control, society, the way it is now, is SURRENDERING common power and giving it to an entity. A government. And what gives them the right to decide what the fuck I do? Granted, I agree with certain basic laws. A lot of shit is ridiculous. I'm sick of being a slave to the goddamn system.

Back when we were neanderthols, and probably weren't self-aware, and probably didn't know a lot about anything beyond natural instinct, the "safety in numbers" bit was valid, and made sense. Now, safety in numbers.. from WHAT? Ourselves. And if we weren't so goddamn simple minded and ego-gripped beings, we wouldn't be threats to ourselves.

I know where you are coming from with this. There are laws I disagree with and think are bs too, but what I was trying to say is that people ARE controlling and ego-gripped, which is why we need laws and society in the first place.

Originally Posted by Rainman

What this all comes down to is money. Money is the root of all evil. The most despicable thing imaginable. Almost all crime could be traced back to something to do with money. We're slaves to it, and it's not even fucking valuable. It's paper. It's digits on a screen. The only reason it's worth anything is because people think it is.

I agree to a point. Money is something very easy to have great greed for, but in the end its not even money itself, its the lust for the power than money brings. This lust for power has been evident through out our history, sadly.

Originally Posted by Rainman

tkdyo, I should rephrase. I don't hate the CONCEPT of society. I just hate what it is. It doesn't have to be centralized around money, which inspires people to do enourmously terribly things, and means horrible struggle for people who were born into unfortunate SOCIAL situations. Classist situations. It would take a semi-apolcalyptic event to change things now, we're so deep in it.

Societies can function without all of this bullshit. When people stop trying to control one another, everything gets balanced. Pssh. I'd really like to believe that's ever going to happen.

ok, this I like better, and yes I would love for society to be able to work in a different manner...people will need to change greatly first though.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Would you mind elaborating on this? The way I see it this is the Natural Order, there's just a group of uniformed thugs who drew some imaginary lines on a map and said MINE. I don't really see anarchy as a style of governing things, but rather an observation of reality(government is a belief).

Think of it this way, technically speaking, yes everything is natural. So our arbitrary lines and claiming land is OURS is also natural.

I can't really define in any simple way what the Natural Order is. What I can tell you is Nature seems to prefer harmonious ecosystems, which is best illustrated by the constant flow of oxygen and carbon dioxide between ourselves and plants. Evolution is a very creative force, in that it creates so many different solutions to life, and not all of them are harmonious with other life forms living in the same environment.

What happens when a life form isn't living harmoniously with it's environment? It eventually goes extinct. In this way, while evolution tosses all sorts of solutions for survival, it is almost predestined to create the most harmonious ecosystem as possible. While we've described nature as being a dog eats dog world, the most successful and some of the oldest natural systems in place are completely harmonious with NO STRUGGLE (like predator and prey) with those involved. Such as the flowers and bees. Flowers like bees and bees like flowers. When you have a completely harmonious ecosystem, it's a win win situation for everyone.

The most archaic, the most basic and fundamental governing system that man has, isn't anarchy - it's understanding and consciously following that which I call the Natural Order. We are alive because our ancestors took the time to understand nature and her natural cycles, which eventually led to agriculture and all that we are today. I consider it a governing system, because understanding nature wasn't instinctual. It was learned, measured, trialed and tested, and then when something was understood - we concieved of it being a natural law that we should choose to follow!!

Einstein was right in that the fourth world war would be fought with sticks and stones. If all the governments of the world were to collapse, the anarchy that will spread will claim millions. But mankind will continue to go on. Because instinctually, out of a need to survive, we will be forced back into the Natural Order, and following the governing cycles of nature.

This is a grim future in my opinion - I am not advocating it. It took us a long time to gather the amount of knowledge we know today. And no single human being knows it all.

Going back to the Natural Order doesn't have to mean that we live like cavemen. All it means fundamentally is that we understand it and follow it. In the Natural Order - Earth comes first. Because without Earth we are nothing. What does this mean for our governments? What does this mean for the American government? The American government places capitalistic interests before its own people, and most definately before the Earth.

If it doesn't place the Earth first, it is out of touch with the Natural Order. Anything out of touch with the Natural Order is destined to go extinct - because that simply is the natural order of things. Which is why, all great empires eventually fall.

Anarchism is retarded for three main reasons:

- It is completely divided between anarcho-individualists, anarcho-communists, syndicalists, nihilists and so on. None of them can agree on 'what works'.

- It is hopelessley utopian. It assumes that some form of spark will be ignited within humanity, which will prevent them from forming coercive groups and establishing authorities.

- It is entirely theoretical. Anarchism has only ever been tried once, after the Spanish civil war. It failed, fast.

Anarchists are, pun intended, dreamers. They detach themselves from reality to envision a utopian society that, at best, would work in an optimistic computer simulation. There have been some truly great anarchists who have influenced modern ideologies. America is practically based on the individualist ideas of Max Stirner; but, alas, his other ideas fall far from the tree of rationale and practicality.

Originally Posted by drew

Anarchism is retarded for three main reasons:

Oh boy!

- It is completely divided between anarcho-individualists, anarcho-communists, syndicalists, nihilists and so on. None of them can agree on 'what works'.

How is this an argument against anarchism? If anything that could be an argument against any sort of current political theory (or even government itself) because, for example, you have Democrats, Greens, Republicans, Socialists, Independents, and Feminists that can never agree on "what works."

- It is hopelessley utopian. It assumes that some form of spark will be ignited within humanity, which will prevent them from forming coercive groups and establishing authorities.

Ever heard of private security?

Authority is not really a problem unless it's coercive and involuntary. If someone contractually and voluntarily agrees to be under some sort of authority, there is no problem.

- It is entirely theoretical. Anarchism has only ever been tried once, after the Spanish civil war. It failed, fast.

I suppose anarchism in Iceland and Ireland just never existed, then.

Anarchists are, pun intended, dreamers. They detach themselves from reality to envision a utopian society that, at best, would work in an optimistic computer simulation. There have been some truly great anarchists who have influenced modern ideologies. America is practically based on the individualist ideas of Max Stirner; but, alas, his other ideas fall far from the tree of rationale and practicality.

Do you think the Constitution is a good idea? Or rather, do you think limited government can work?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Oh boy!

** Indeed

How is this an argument against anarchism? If anything that could be an argument against any sort of current political theory (or even government itself) because, for example, you have Democrats, Greens, Republicans, Socialists, Independents, and Feminists that can never agree on "what works."

** But other ideologies believe in common principles. Anarchists can only agree on three minor points (we know what they are, no need to list them).

Ever heard of private security?

Authority is not really a problem unless it's coercive and involuntary. If someone contractually and voluntarily agrees to be under some sort of authority, there is no problem.

** Private security? But that would be capitalist. An anarcho-communist rejects private organisations as they are inherently individualist and divisive. Poor argument. You revert to utopian propositions when you talk about authority. What (when) if they DO become coercive, who will stop them?

I suppose anarchism in Iceland and Ireland just never existed, then.

** Correct. Anarchism has only reigned on a national level on one occasion.

Do you think the Constitution is a good idea? Or rather, do you think limited government can work?

** I am not American, so I can't really comment. Devolved government is preferable to limited centralised government. Power is an utterly corrupting force, as a liberal I believe that power should never be centralised. Just look at Blair's autonomy, a disgraceful abuse of power.

** But other ideologies believe in common principles. Anarchists can only agree on three minor points (we know what they are, no need to list them).

Go ahead and list them, if you will.

** Private security? But that would be capitalist.

Yeah. Anarcho-Capitalism.

An anarcho-communist rejects private organisations as they are inherently individualist and divisive.

Which is why Anarcho-Communism fails miserably. It reverts to some strange ideology where people work out of the "good" of their own hearts. There's also something about mass stores of resources people can freely take from...

Poor argument. You revert to utopian propositions when you talk about authority. What (when) if they DO become coercive, who will stop them?

Well first, in an anarchist society, I highly doubt people would even pay attention to authoritative power grabs. Second, private security would almost be a must (and would be highly demanded. Look at Detroit: due to the massive cuts in police funding, people have resorted to contracting private defense agencies to watch over neighborhoods).

Third, who would do business with an institution that was planning to become some new government? Their consumer base would vanish.

** Correct. Anarchism has only reigned on a national level on one occasion.

My statement was sarcastic.

** I am not American, so I can't really comment. Devolved government is preferable to limited centralised government. Power is an utterly corrupting force, as a liberal I believe that power should never be centralised. Just look at Blair's autonomy, a disgraceful abuse of power.

Devolved government? Care to clarify?

I don't think total anarchy would work, allthough as good as no rules and no enforcement works for me.

I guess some kind of regulation would be desirable, but very minimal. You know kind of like Rock, Paper Scizzors is used to determine human choices if an agreement cannot be made and the relation between 2 people, or even between the members of a community, is threatening to become debalanced by it.

Slight regulation to overcome selfishness/egocentric behaviour.
Regulations to ensure basic material wealth being equally shared and distributed.


I guess the old laws reign surpreme;
1. What you do will come back to you threefold (Karma)
2. Do as you wish just as long as you harm/wrong no one with it.

Comming down to:
If I want to grow a massive Marijuana bush in my garden it should be none of my neighbor's business. I should be free to do that as it is a choice that will affect my life. And my life alone.

If on the other hand I keep animals and neglect them totally, leaving them starved and parasite-infested, I am obviously doing harm/wrong and some consequences should be taken. For these consequences to be taken there should at least be a minimal level of regulations and enforcement.

Originally Posted by SKA

I don't think total anarchy would work, allthough as good as no rules and no enforcement works for me.

I guess some kind of regulation would be desirable, but very minimal. You know kind of like Rock, Paper Scizzors is used to determine human choices if an agreement cannot be made and the relation between 2 people, or even between the members of a community, is threatening to become debalanced by it.

Slight regulation to overcome selfishness/egocentric behaviour.
Regulations to ensure basic material wealth being equally shared and distributed.


I guess the old laws reign surpreme;
1. What you do will come back to you threefold (Karma)
2. Do as you wish just as long as you harm/wrong no one with it.

Comming down to:
If I want to grow a massive Marijuana bush in my garden it should be none of my neighbor's business. I should be free to do that as it is a choice that will affect my life. And my life alone.

If on the other hand I keep animals and neglect them totally, leaving them starved and parasite-infested, I am obviously doing harm/wrong and some consequences should be taken. For these consequences to be taken there should at least be a minimal level of regulations and enforcement.

...And people call me crazy

Go ahead and list them, if you will.

- That the individual is sovereign
- No external authority should impose themselves on others
- Individuals are the best judges of their own actions

Yeah. Anarcho-Capitalism.

Just normal capitalism? What about co-operative capitalism? Even the anarcho-capitalists can't agree on a system of capitalism.

Which is why Anarcho-Communism fails miserably. It reverts to some strange ideology where people work out of the "good" of their own hearts. There's also something about mass stores of resources people can freely take from...

And anarcho-individualism believes that people reach some form of enlightenment in the absence of government. The issue of internal contention arises here too. Who is it that you identify with? Henry Thoreau? Max Stirner?

Well first, in an anarchist society, I highly doubt people would even pay attention to authoritative power grabs. Second, private security would almost be a must (and would be highly demanded. Look at Detroit: due to the massive cuts in police funding, people have resorted to contracting private defense agencies to watch over neighborhoods).

Third, who would do business with an institution that was planning to become some new government? Their consumer base would vanish.

Private security ensures that the poor can't afford protection. The need for security is a fundamental human need; without it, revolutions will begin and the state will be reinstated.

You criticise the deluded ideals of anarcho-communists whilst asserting that your own hopes and theories are structurally sound. Do not observe the world through a tinted frame. View the world from a pragmatic, rational and realistic perspective. Do not make assumptions, only calculations.

My statement was sarcastic.

Then my point still stands.

Devolved government? Care to clarify?

Anarchists aren't fools, they're just hopelessley misguided. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The solution is to decentralise power from one institution to several. This is the chief theory behind Montesquieu's theory on the separation of powers. Only by sharing executive power can autocratic disasters be averted.

*** Side note, is there a spell checker on here? I've got sticky keys and correcting myself is annoying .

Well, MONEY is the reason why we live like this.

Money is just a system of control and the root of all corruption. But at the same time we need it.

We need a world without social classes, such as working class, middle class, lower class. We need ONE class. We need to abandon culture all together. It keeps us seperated, divided. To tell the truth a one world government is exactly what we need. Who the fuck are we going to go to war with if all countries and continents are united.

We need everyone to have high confidence and high-self-esteem so that we can build and create together. But that just can't happen right now. There's too much hate, greed, jealousy, pessimism, FEAR. And it's going to take something huge for the collective unconscious to come out of that.

Ego and a fucked money system is why we live like this. People are never going to abandon the ego unless there is some global shift in consciousness.

We need a techno-utopia world. The ideal world where the government actually cares about us, science and spirituality meet. World peace. A money system that is beneficial to everyone. Lucid dreams every night. Outer-space travel, populating other planets. Unlimited creation. If spirituality wasn't suppressed, this probably could happen.

Not that this has anything to do with conspiracy, but it's almost as if there is someone at the top that WANTS to keep us in fear, to keep our self-confidence and self-esteem low, to keep us broke. Why in the fuck is alcohol legal when it makes you aggressive, angry, depressed, negative, when that green lady does the exact opposite.

We need something that can tap into human collective unconscious and change it's mind-state to positive, to happy ( the TRUE happy, the inner happy )ffs.

Anarchy may be the key though. A revolution. But then we'd have to start over, and the same bullshit would probably happen again. Nothing is going to be different unless we change how we think as a whole.

Originally Posted by drew

- That the individual is sovereign
- No external authority should impose themselves on others
- Individuals are the best judges of their own actions

Mkay.

Just normal capitalism? What about co-operative capitalism? Even the anarcho-capitalists can't agree on a system of capitalism.

What the hell is "co-operative capitalism?"

And anarcho-individualism believes that people reach some form of enlightenment in the absence of government. The issue of internal contention arises here too. Who is it that you identify with? Henry Thoreau? Max Stirner?

Does it matter? I'm not an anarcho-individualist.

Private security ensures that the poor can't afford protection. The need for security is a fundamental human need; without it, revolutions will begin and the state will be reinstated.

Have you no knowledge of the fact that with competition, prices fall? Supply and demand? The exploding prosperity in the free market?

You criticise the deluded ideals of anarcho-communists whilst asserting that your own hopes and theories are structurally sound. Do not observe the world through a tinted frame. View the world from a pragmatic, rational and realistic perspective. Do not make assumptions, only calculations.

Anarcho-collectivists of any kind are deluded because they want to throw out the market system while still maintaining freedom and prosperity. They also call for the end of the "individual" so that everyone works out of the good of their own heart for the "greater good." Completely ridiculous.

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist[1] 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 would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes, and crimes against the state would be rendered moot.

Then my point still stands.

It does not. My statement was sarcastic in the sense that both Iceland and Ireland were anarchist societies at one point.

Anarchists aren't fools, they're just hopelessley misguided. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The solution is to decentralise power from one institution to several. This is the chief theory behind Montesquieu's theory on the separation of powers. Only by sharing executive power can autocratic disasters be averted.

So you would rather coercive power stay, but instead be spread around? How does one prevent "institution A" from having more power than "institution B?"

*** Side note, is there a spell checker on here? I've got sticky keys and correcting myself is annoying .

Firefox has a spellchecker.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Have you no knowledge of the fact that with competition, prices fall? Supply and demand? The exploding prosperity in the free market?

You're just pissed because Obama is black!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You're just pissed because Obama is black!

Oh shit, I've been discovered!

You're either an anarcho-individualist or an anarcho-communist, any educated anarchist knows this. Since you claim to be neither, I really can't be bothered to extrapolate and explain.

Originally Posted by drew

You're either an anarcho-individualist or an anarcho-communist, any educated anarchist knows this. Since you claim to be neither, I really can't be bothered to extrapolate and explain.

Why not?

Anarcho-individualism is nice, and I hold some elements of that in high regard, (such as Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which is not really an example of anarcho-individualism but is still a great work), but I am not that.

And there's no way I'm an anarcho-communist.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Why not?

Anarcho-individualism is nice, and I hold some elements of that in high regard, (such as Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which is not really an example of anarcho-individualism but is still a great work), but I am not that.

And there's no way I'm an anarcho-communist.

You're an anarcho-wotsit.

I can't truthfully I say I understand any of these concepts. I'm admittedly one of the many who wish for something better, but don't know how it could even be possible. I've been in a very Fight Club-ish kind of mood for the past few weeks. Just observing the bullshit I see around me and wishing I could do something about it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy.

and yet you have a very strange understanding of anarchy when compared to the works of a number of anarchist thinkers. I remember you as the anarcho-capitalist. Its not as simple as anarchy is this or anarchy is that. There are numerous different understandings of the term as is the case with all political distinctions. If i remember rightly you support the replacement of the state protection in the form of police with private militias that are hired with currency. To me that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard attempt to be rationalized. and yet you call yourself an anarchists, when most anarchists would call you a capitalist pig. So there you see is the problem, anarchism is huge with many specific "denominations". Threads like this one, and the communism one should be more specific.

Originally Posted by Rainman

I can't truthfully I say I understand any of these concepts. I'm admittedly one of the many who wish for something better, but don't know how it could even be possible. I've been in a very Fight Club-ish kind of mood for the past few weeks. Just observing the bullshit I see around me and wishing I could do something about it.

Look up Terence Mckenna and his ideas on culture and civilization; if your anything like me you'll find he articulates exactly what your thinking better than you could ever dream of.

Originally Posted by imran_p

and yet you have a very strange understanding of anarchy when compared to the works of a number of anarchist thinkers. I remember you as the anarcho-capitalist. Its not as simple as anarchy is this or anarchy is that. There are numerous different understandings of the term as is the case with all political distinctions. If i remember rightly you support the replacement of the state protection in the form of police with private militias that are hired with currency. To me that is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard attempt to be rationalized. and yet you call yourself an anarchists, when most anarchists would call you a capitalist pig. So there you see is the problem, anarchism is huge with many specific "denominations". Threads like this one, and the communism one should be more specific.

For one, my statement was aimed at UM's belief that, in anarchy, peace, law, and order would be thrown out the window and society would become a clusterfuck of killings and immoral behavior -- a common belief whenever any sort of anarchist argument is put forth.

Second, I claim that the only way any sort of sustainable anarchy to occur is through the market process. That includes private security and the like. You call that absurd, I call it historically proven fact (in that people do use private security agencies when the monopolistic State security is cut back).

Also, I don't claim that there is only one type of "anarchy." I recognize that there are other schools of thought, ranging from anarcho-environmentalists to anarcho-feminists. I just think they are crazy and would never come to fruition.

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.





?

Originally Posted by guerilla

I wonder if anyone has ever thought of this:

Build a robotic government, which is programmed by humans and they cannot lie cheat steal or do anything wrong because well we program them that way, then the robots can run a (SMALL) government

A government which pretty much is bound by the us constitution, so if a robot tried to disobey the constitution they would be deactivated and replaced with a logical robot.

A robot congress executive branch and robot supreme court and robot governors...etc...etc.

But they still all answer to the people ultimately, no electoral college, no federal reserve no cia no irs...no useless social programs.

?

What if someone doesn't want to live under that government?