NationStates Jolt Archive

No government? Can you imagine what kind of chaos our world would be in if there wasn't any government?

No government? Can you imagine what kind of chaos our world would be in if there wasn't any government?

Anarchy is founded on the somewhat idealistic theory that all humans are good, hardworking souls who would not attempt to cause chaos, and that we don't need a government to protect ourselves.

If it was somewhat more possible in the real world, I'd support it, but right now, I support limited government size and power, which (though not Anarchy in a good sense) is one of the next-best things

I think that anarchy is kind of a stupid concept
I think you just opened yourself up for a 200 post debate with Letila.

Should be fun!

hmm.

i could argue at length why anarchy is good in theory, but unfortunately, humans aren't naturally nice enough for it to work. so, i will say that anarchy is not a stupid concept, or a stupid ideal, but it probably is a stupid thing to institute in today's world.

sort of like communism.

I completely agree. Everyone must conform to a standardization. It is impossible to avoid. If you don't believe me, give me directions to your house without giving me a single compass point, distance referrence, or road marker.

I find most anarchists to be 13-15 year old kids with no grasp on reality who see their parents and school as their sole governing bodies.

Anarchy has no point and it is a self-defeating philosophy. If everyone were Anarchists, then Anarchy would become the new standardization to rebel against.

Now I will watch the flames ensue.

*waits for letila to explode with rage*

*squints*

What's the in the distance?

*gets out binoculors*

OMG....

*watches some small shadow with a huge flag of a woman's butt coming in his general direction at Mach 3*

*sits around waiting for Letila to ramble on about how the government is evil*

Well, actually, I think government could have do one or two things a bit better over our history . . .

OMG....

*watches some small shadow with a huge flag of a woman's butt coming in his general direction at Mach 3*

Don't you mean a picture of Vash the Stampede? :D

I just have a hard time believing that everything wouldn't be complete chaos if there wasn't any government. People would break laws, just for the sake of being able to. I don't think that the government should be too strict, but I think that total freedom is something a bit far fetched.

Anarchy would work in the real world, you just have to give everyone very large, automatic rifles.

Have you bothered to do any research on anarchism? I may hate fascism, but I at least bothered to read up on what it is and what it's point is. I suggest you read a few things by anarchists before you dismiss it. It might help you understand it better. At the very least, look it up at wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarchism

Have you bothered to do any research on anarchism? I may hate fascism, but I at least bothered to read up on what it is and what it's point is. I suggest you read a few things by anarchists before you dismiss it. It might help you understand it better. At the very least, look it up at wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarchism
*sing's Sephiroth's theme song on FF7...dark and cold...*


:D

actually, I like the idea of anarchism, but I don't think it will ever work on a large scale.

I just have a hard time believing that everything wouldn't be complete chaos if there wasn't any government. People would break laws, just for the sake of being able to. I don't think that the government should be too strict, but I think that total freedom is something a bit far fetched.

if there wasn't any government there wouldn't be any laws to break, so all the "illegal" stuff that people would do - wouldn't be illegal anymore, and therefore there would be no reason to do it. you have to evaluate a concept based on the world it would create - not the current world.

"Why do you support drug laws?"
"Because otherwise people could get away with taking illegal drugs!"
"But they wouldn't be illegal if there weren't laws against them."

- debate from my school

With Capitalism you get really cool, fast cars...w00t.

if there wasn't any government there wouldn't be any laws to break, so all the "illegal" stuff that people would do - wouldn't be illegal anymore, and therefore there would be no reason to do it. you have to evaluate a concept based on the world it would create - not the current world.

"Why do you support drug laws?"
"Because otherwise people could get away with taking illegal drugs!"
"But they wouldn't be illegal if there weren't laws against them."

- debate from my school
Do people kill other people just because it's illegal?


Hell, if I were in an anarchaic society, I'd grab a gun and start shooting every fatso and moron I see.

Have you bothered to do any research on anarchism? I may hate fascism, but I at least bothered to read up on what it is and what it's point is. I suggest you read a few things by anarchists before you dismiss it. It might help you understand it better. At the very least, look it up at wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarchism

I read into it and I still think that it is a stupid concept and that it would never work in today's society.

Do people kill other people just because it's illegal?


Hell, if I were in an anarchaic society, I'd grab a gun and start shooting every fatso and moron I see.

Not at all concerned with them returning fire?

Not at all concerned with them returning fire?
Well I'd also would be shooting at people shooting and looking for me of course. Then I can easily hide. Really, how many people do you think will be able to fly a helicopter? How fast do you think they can get to me?

And why am I picturing myself doing all this naked?

Not at all concerned with them returning fire?
oh, and someone on a suicidal rampage wouldn't be so concerned now would they?

I would think that even if there were enough nice people to coexist without laws or a government, that foreign powers would see what's going on and take over. Generally a defense force is trained and provided for by a government.

Problem is it is not self substaining.

Anarchy is only ever popular with middle class kids who have no idea of the real world and want to rebel against mommy and daddy.

oh, and someone on a suicidal rampage wouldn't be so concerned now would they?

Well, what's stopping you from doing that now?

Well, what's stopping you from doing that now?
World Domination plans of course

and you can hush, I did nothing wrong

I read into it and I still think that it is a stupid concept and that it would never work in today's society.

Why? Is your desire to kill kept in line only by the government?

Why? Is your desire to kill kept in line only by the government?
I think your confusing me with him, or am I just spouting weird things?

HELLO! ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELF?
:eek: OMG....Anarchy is simply a community of joined people who agree on the same thing...Not having a government, no having rules! There are so many anarchy communities in the real word right now! You can't stop it... :mad: I mean you could...But it'd only be a matter of time before it came back! Don;t sit there and say that anarchy is "bad" because there is "NO" government. OF course theres a damn government!!!!!!!!!!!! Just people who go against it! Don't be so...Unobservent! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

HELLO! ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELF?
:eek: OMG....Anarchy is simply a community of joined people who agree on the same thing...Not having a government, no having rules! There are so many anarchy communities in the real word right now! You can't stop it... :mad: I mean you could...But it'd only be a matter of time before it came back! Don;t sit there and say that anarchy is "bad" because there is "NO" government. OF course theres a damn government!!!!!!!!!!!! Just people who go against it! Don't be so...Unobservent! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Where are these communities then?

Anarchy is only ever popular with middle class kids who have no idea of the real world and want to rebel against mommy and daddy.

Um , I hate to break it to you, but they do it becuz of many other things! Ya some moronic kids do it to go against the rules from there parents! But think about it! what about the 20 and 30 year olds who do it because the believe in something that the government says no to! Like shoplifters....Thats a softcore form of anarchy...government says no...we say fuck you and steal what we want!

Well, anarchy isn't necessarily prima facie impossible. Pre-fascist Spain was pretty close to being Bakunin's ideal of an anarchist state, and it didn't collapse until Germany gave the fascists enough weaponry and men to overwhelm the Republicans.

That being said, Marx did some devastating critiques on Bakunin's ararchical theory, and just speaking for myself, I have some problem with Bakunin's initial presupposition that people are by nature rational and rebellious. While I don't disagree with the second, I've found that the first is problematic, primarily because while almost everybody has the capacity for rationality, I've found that almost everyone on some occasion or another (some more than others) display an almost terminal inability to apply it to the situation at hand.

Um , I hate to break it to you, but they do it becuz of many other things! Ya some moronic kids do it to go against the rules from there parents! But think about it! what about the 20 and 30 year olds who do it because the believe in something that the government says no to! Like shoplifters....Thats a softcore form of anarchy...government says no...we say fuck you and steal what we want!

No that's just thievery which the 30 years try to justify with pathetic claims of being an anarchist. You can rest assured that they are benefiting from being partof a governed state. If the shop keeper caught them and gave them a good hiding they would soon run along to the authorities crying.

Where are these communities then?
Everywhere! DOnt sit there and think the us or canada or any other place is innocent of anarchy! because they arent! Some maybe most are underground anarchist!

I see it like this...its kind of like gays ... a straight person looks at someone as says their gay...when meanwhile that person...Is not...It's bullshit! You can't just pick them out! Same with anarchist! you cant tell sometimes if they are or arent!

Um , I hate to break it to you, but they do it becuz of many other things! Ya some moronic kids do it to go against the rules from there parents! But think about it! what about the 20 and 30 year olds who do it because the believe in something that the government says no to! Like shoplifters....Thats a softcore form of anarchy...government says no...we say fuck you and steal what we want!


Does anyone else find it amusing that somebody named "Gothic Vampires" is standing up against the idea that anarchy is a rebel-against-mommy-and-daddy thing?

Everywhere! DOnt sit there and think the us or canada or any other place is innocent of anarchy! because they arent! Some maybe most are underground anarchist!

I see it like this...its kind of like gays ... a straight person looks at someone as says their gay...when meanwhile that person...Is not...It's bullshit! You can't just pick them out! Same with anarchist! you cant tell sometimes if they are or arent!

Again, on the whole they will be leading normal lives benefiting from the fact that rules, regulations and benefits are derived from a governing body. They are not anarchists, they just like to think they are.

Okay,
Why is it so amusing? Are you that much of a twat!? I have my opnions and views, and beliefs....If you dont like it go play hide and go fuck your self for all i care!

Um , I hate to break it to you, but they do it becuz of many other things! Ya some moronic kids do it to go against the rules from there parents! But think about it! what about the 20 and 30 year olds who do it because the believe in something that the government says no to! Like shoplifters....Thats a softcore form of anarchy...government says no...we say fuck you and steal what we want!

No, that's absolute disregard for others' property - it has nothing to do with government.

Just like you'd like to sit there thinking you're king shit upon your royal thrown of Know It Alls?

Okay,
Why is it so amusing? Are you that much of a twat!? I have my opnions and views, and beliefs....If you dont like it go play hide and go fuck your self for all i care!

It's amusing because I laugh at stereotypes. And you're making me laugh harder now.

Well I'd also would be shooting at people shooting and looking for me of course.

And why am I picturing myself doing all this naked?

Probably sexual insecurity.

Does anyone else find it amusing that somebody named "Gothic Vampires" is standing up against the idea that anarchy is a rebel-against-mommy-and-daddy thing?

I think her font, name and spelling is amusing..or annoying. becuz either one works!

We all know what Anarchy is.

I agree that Anarchy work, in small communities. But if it was nationwide, bleh, that'd go to hell. Besides, didn't some neighborhoods in the 60's go to hell, even though they were communes, aka the Anarchist Ideal?

And Gothic Vampires, you sound like an immature teenager that thinks purple is pimp...

Thank you :)

what stereo type? LOL...Why because i have a certain Screen name? Im not goth nor am i vampyric. I don't see the stereotype there!

Ye, I am a teenager! and no..I dont think purple is "pimp" Excuse me for having likes! I guess you think balck is pimp...is a compeletly different story right?

I was wondering though - what about a leaderless, decentralised federation of small communities linked together on regional, national, hey even international levels? Administrative posts would be at the most local level, with methods of choice being up to each community.

IMHO Anarchy is an ideal to aim at - but in the end, keeping power dispersed to the lowest level is good enough for the moment :)

The only problem with anarchy is the fact that human beings are herd animals. This works to anarchy’s favor originally with everyone mingling and getting along, basically living by the unwritten rules of the herd. But the problem is that now and again you get strong mind people who want things, they aren’t happy about the status quo and try to do something about it. Lets say there is an anarchist society with today’s level of education and technology. We’d do well until something befell us or a problem that couldn’t be surmounted by individual effort came along. This is fine because in anarchy the first step would be a volunteer organization that would work on the problem. If we managed to over come it here society would continue. Should this volunteer organization need more time to overcome the obstacle you increase the probability of dissension, now this is fine because they can leave, its volunteer. But what happens when the most talented people want to leave and the not so talented people don’t? Now we either have the society vever overcome their problem, or, they force the people into working, albeit temporarily. Now in a position of power we can use the adage of corruption and completeness.

Has anyone played the game Deus Ex II? It’s a fantastic game but one of the possible endings is that everyone becomes linked through technology, constantly aware of all the thoughts being circulated in the human race. This allows everyone to always understand each other and empathize. I believe that anarchy would be an amazing way to live, if every human being was able to use some sort of instantaneous communication device to any and all other human beings. On top of this we need to teach every single person to be able to empathize with all other living things.

The problem with rationality is that I can rationalize my actions as for the greater good, when you give someone that opportunity you have the beginnings of a democracy, people acting for the greater good as apposed to individual good.

As it stands anarchy is stupid, for humans. However remove the self destructive variable, humanity as it is, and the system that is anarchy is the best out there.

what stereo type? LOL...Why because i have a certain Screen name? Im not goth nor am i vampyric. I don't see the stereotype there!

Teenager.
Loudly protesting the opinions and statements of others, with name calling involved at times.
Demanding that anarchy is more than just "popular amongst middle class kids seeking to rebel against their parents."
Has the name Gothic Vampires, two "subcultures" that, if adhered to by a teenager, would not be too strange to be found coupled with an "anarchist" attitude.

That stereotype.

Ye, I am a teenager! and no..I dont think purple is "pimp" Excuse me for having likes! I guess you think balck is pimp...is a compeletly different story right?

So that explains why you have horrid spelling! Geez...

Also, how dare you say that I am white? I am Hispanic, Cuban actually. I think Brown is pimp ;)

Bah, crazy white people, because you seem like one, and you are bordering on flaming... :P

I think your confusing me with him, or am I just spouting weird things?

If you don't want to kill people, then why are you for government? Remember that government kills its fair share of people.

If you don't want to kill people, then why are you for government? Remember that government kills its fair share of people.

That's like saying "If you don't want to kill people, then why are you for eating? Eating kills its fair share of people."

Why? Is your desire to kill kept in line only by the government?

Yes, actually.

I agree that Anarchy work, in small communities. But if it was nationwide, bleh, that'd go to hell.

Well, that's a start anyhow, admitting that it will work ins mall communities: why couldn't it work nationally if those small communities had representatives who would discuss issues with other small communities and thus create a nationwide framework?


Besides, didn't some neighborhoods in the 60's go to hell, even though they were communes, aka the Anarchist Ideal?

Surely they did, but we can also find many examples of governments that have gone to hell very easily. Such failures do not damn the whole idea, just the particular implementation of it in a particular way at a particular place and time.

If you don't want to kill people, then why are you for government? Remember that government kills its fair share of people.

We kill people, in our own special way. The Government just does it legally ;)

Have I ever said that I agree with your signiture somehow O_o

I swear, you people are going to turn me into a liberal...

I was wondering though - what about a leaderless, decentralised federation of small communities linked together on regional, national, hey even international levels? Administrative posts would be at the most local level, with methods of choice being up to each community.

IMHO Anarchy is an ideal to aim at - but in the end, keeping power dispersed to the lowest level is good enough for the moment :)

That was the idea of the US originally. It was a 'confederacy' where the lower members take direction, but not orders from the top. There's no real good example of it today though. Read the *tries to think of name* Federalist papers you'll probably enjoy them, good american history

To completely dismiss the concept of anarchism on a few stereotypes is a bit ignorant IMHO, but I can see where most people get that idea from.

Then again, we have our fair share of clueless lefties, conservatives, [insert political leaning here]...

Well, that's a start anyhow, admitting that it will work ins mall communities: why couldn't it work nationally if those small communities had representatives who would discuss issues with other small communities and thus create a nationwide framework?




Surely they did, but we can also find many examples of governments that have gone to hell very easily. Such failures do not damn the whole idea, just the particular implementation of it in a particular way at a particular place and time.

1. Unlike other people, I admit I'm wrong ;). If you were to make a nationwide framework, it'd be like large Confederecy(sp). Which would be like some sort of Government correct?

2. Of course Governments went to hell, I just stated that fact so the Gothic Vampires can debate it in a civilized manner.

That was the idea of the US originally. It was a 'confederacy' where the lower members take direction, but not orders from the top. There's no real good example of it today though. Read the *tries to think of name* Federalist papers you'll probably enjoy them, good american history

I do believe there are a few anarchistic communities in Sweden (if I'm not mistaken) that are doing fine and dandy - they've been around for quite a while now... I'll go look something up...

As it stands anarchy is stupid, for humans. However remove the self destructive variable, humanity as it is, and the system that is anarchy is the best out there.

Do you believe that government is the only thing which holds the self-destructive variable at bay?

I was wondering though - what about a leaderless, decentralised federation of small communities linked together on regional, national, hey even international levels? Administrative posts would be at the most local level, with methods of choice being up to each community.

IMHO Anarchy is an ideal to aim at - but in the end, keeping power dispersed to the lowest level is good enough for the moment :)

Anarchy is the ideal situation, but it is not realistic given human tendencies. Fact of the matter is, even if there was no government, people would form into clans that had natural leaders and unwritten (or perhaps even written) rules or norms. This would be advantageous to people as a means of ensuring protection and accomplishing certain goals that one person couldn't do alone. Other systems are idealistic too and have failed because they neglect to factor in real humans (e.g. Communism).

Humans need government. Humans need government so much that they fight and die to protect the very government that strips away certain rights in order to make everyone more prosperous, safe, and happy. Anarchy may be the ideal in a perfect world; however, it isn't even close to realistic.

Have I ever said that I agree with your signiture somehow O_o

It's from the anime series Trigun, really.

Yes, actually.

Now imagine you're in the government. You would be in a perfect possition to abuse your power.

1. Unlike other people, I admit I'm wrong ;). If you were to make a nationwide framework, it'd be like large Confederecy(sp). Which would be like some sort of Government correct?

Not neccessarilly: all I specified was a framework. It is not necessarilly implied that such a framework actually carries or exercises power. It could be just a network for sharing information between the different small communities. Through discussion it may be possible to overcome the problems which you believe argue against nationwide anarchism.


To respond further to your position I really have to ask why you feel that anarchism can't work at a larger scale than the small community.

What about thinking of Anarchy not so much as a kind of mindless idealism - more as pessimism of the human nature. Humans will abuse power when it is concentrated in the hands of the few, hence power must be spread among as many people as possible.

Unlike ideas like Communism, which became pretty standard in its implementation with Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, Anarchy gains flexibility from its lack of a rigid blueprint for society, hence theoretically, each anarchist society within federation (assuming it followed a federalist model) could have different methods of organising itself and keeping power dispersed.

Do you believe that government is the only thing which holds the self-destructive variable at bay?

No I believe that government is the instinctive reaction of the huddled masses. They want to be protected by something larger then themselves. You have to admit that even if you are anti-government the 'Leviathan’ is intimidating being.

No I believe that government is the instinctive reaction of the huddled masses. They want to be protected by something larger then themselves. You have to admit that even if you are anti-government the 'Leviathan’ is (AN?) intimidating being.

Possibly, but at the same time government/leviathan/the monarch is a subset of the same 'huddled masses', rather than something external to them. It isn't larger than them, instead it is the product of them co-operating in a certain manner, and it is in no way clear that other possible forms of co-operation could not produce other structures of protection.

Unlike ideas like Communism, which became pretty standard in its implementation with Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, Anarchy gains flexibility from its lack of a rigid blueprint for society, hence theoretically, each anarchist society within federation (assuming it followed a federalist model) could have different methods of organising itself and keeping power dispersed.


I think you might have missed the point about Marx here - he says very little about the actual final state of Communism, the following being about the most explicit -

". . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."


That is as close as he gets to actually describing the state of Communism: what you have confused here is the method he advocates for getting there (the Dictatorship of the Proletariat) with the target. He provides a kind of blueprint for getting there, but not for the final society which he hopes to call in to being. Marx gives us less of a blueprint, and more of a roadmap (hideously flawed IMHO, but a roadmap nonetheless).

No government? Can you imagine what kind of chaos our world would be in if there wasn't any government?

You argue from a common misconception about anarchism, which derives from a misunderstanding of the etymology of the term.

Most people seem to think that "anarchy," as a political form, means "no rules." In fact, however, it falls into the same family as "monarchy" -- "rule by one" -- and "oligarchy" -- "rule by a few." It means, not "no rules," but "rule by none," or "no rulers."

In other words, the anarchist philosophy demands that no person, or group of people, be set aside to rule as a class over the rest of society. In essence, then, anarchism is democracy taken to an extreme... and the reason most contemporary anarchists oppose present "democracies" is that they believe these governments really support the capitalist class structure.

Historically, opponents of the European monarchies who favored democracy, were called "anarchists" by their opponents.

Now, some idealistic anarchists may believe it is possible (and desirable) to live without rules altogether. Most (or at least, most of the better educated anarchists), however, look to historical examples like Native American culture and recognize a rich, rule-based... but also classless society.

Valid point, but I did say Marxism-Leninism, the model implemented in Soviet Russia. *scribbles down the quote anyway for reference*

To respond further to your position I really have to ask why you feel that anarchism can't work at a larger scale than the small community.

Because there's always that one dick that wants more, and he gets more dicks to join him. Pretty soon, there's an entire corrupt Government, run by hundreds of dicks. So the basis of my argument is that humans are dicks by structure, of course, maybe you can prove me wrong, I'm open to suggestions...

". . . as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

Is that how you envision anarcho-communism as working, only without a dictatorship of the proletariat and all that stuff?

http://ohmygods.timerift.net/strips/2004/03/27.jpg

:D

With Capitalism you get really cool, fast cars...w00t.

Who says you wouldn't have that in anarchism?!?!

Of course, one might envision anarchism being a bit friendlier to the environment... and all those fast cars sure do burn a lot of gas. Not to mention the accidents!!

Economically, I think it's a maldistribution of resources for everyone to own a car -- and especially more than one!!

But, I don't see any reason that people shouldn't be able to rent them, either to get to a remote location to which mass transit cannot take them... or just for the occasional joy-ride.

Hell, if I were in an anarchaic society, I'd grab a gun and start shooting every fatso and moron I see.


Ummm... and you would be rounded up and punished, possibly by the death penalty, just as you would in today's world.

Where do people get this crazy notion that anarchists just don't want to punish criminals? Yikes! Not most of the anarchists I know...

Is that how you envision anarcho-communism as working, only without a dictatorship of the proletariat and all that stuff?

I think anarcho-communism would be better described by Bakunin, who as mentioned earlier, had some pretty nasty disputes with Marx.

I always thought Bakunin was a bit odd of his talk of the "invisible dictatorship", however.

Valid point, but I did say Marxism-Leninism, the model implemented in Soviet Russia.

True, but to me that isn't Communism, it is just an attempt to get there.


*scribbles down the quote anyway for reference*

Its from The German Ideology, which if nothing else is a pretty speedy read.

Really, how many people do you think will be able to fly a helicopter?

Umm... probably a lot more than can fly one now. Considering that with a more even distribution of resources, anyone who wants to learn should be able to afford it. All they have to worry about is opportunity cost... the fact that there might be something else they wanted to do, but will not be able to.

Because there's always that one dick that wants more, and he gets more dicks to join him. Pretty soon, there's an entire corrupt Government, run by hundreds of dicks. So the basis of my argument is that humans are dicks by structure, of course, maybe you can prove me wrong, I'm open to suggestions...


Allow me to indulge myself and quote Chandler - "...but down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid" - it is the role of the people to insure that a government is not formed if they do not desire one to be formed. If those dicks want to head off onto an island and form their governmental state, fair enough, but if they want to set themselves above other people in an anarchist community, then they should watch their backs. The people of an anarchist community must be vigilant against those who want to set themselves up as powers without authority.

An anarchist society's prime defense against the imposition of a governmental system, either from within or from without, is the suspicion and mistrust of said governmental systems.

Problem is it is not self substaining.

Native American nations lasted for around 4,000 years... as anarchist societies. Thomas Jefferson had them in mind when he wrote about "no government" being the ideal.

Where do people get this crazy notion that anarchists just don't want to punish criminals? Yikes! Not most of the anarchists I know...

Well, I'm hardly a fan of punishing criminals*. Neutralising them so that they are unable to cause trouble for others or attempting to show them the error of their ways is a very different matter.


* for want of a better term.

I think anarcho-communism would be better described by Bakunin, who as mentioned earlier, had some pretty nasty disputes with Marx.

I always thought Bakunin was a bit odd of his talk of the "invisible dictatorship", however.

Ah, Bakunin. Although he had problems of his own, he did have a very solid vision of an anarchistic society. I really approve of his punishment system: if you commit a crime, you have two choices: accept the society's punishment or be banished from the society. His work is often coupled with the economic plans of Proudhon and his Bank of the People.

The thing to remember about anarchism is it means no government. It can be ANYTHING that doesn't involve government. Some anarchists are punks who want to get away with crime. Others have more sensible visions of human society organized in a way entirely different from government.

Well, anarchy isn't necessarily prima facie impossible. Pre-fascist Spain was pretty close to being Bakunin's ideal of an anarchist state, and it didn't collapse until Germany gave the fascists enough weaponry and men to overwhelm the Republicans.

That being said, Marx did some devastating critiques on Bakunin's ararchical theory, and just speaking for myself, I have some problem with Bakunin's initial presupposition that people are by nature rational and rebellious. While I don't disagree with the second, I've found that the first is problematic, primarily because while almost everybody has the capacity for rationality, I've found that almost everyone on some occasion or another (some more than others) display an almost terminal inability to apply it to the situation at hand.

Yeah... Good thing Bakunin's isn't the only theory.

Well that's just me, but answer me this.

How would you be able to produce cars, computers, and other complicated machinary?

Well that's just me, but answer me this.

How would you be able to produce cars, computers, and other complicated machinary?

Collectively run factories. Maybe I'm dumb, I fail to see the problem here.

I can't remember exactly which company I'm thinking of here, is it the producers of Goretex (hardly a low tech material) that are collectively run? Certainly it is one of that kind of company.

Collectively run factories. Maybe I'm dumb, I fail to see the problem here.

I can't remember exactly which company I'm thinking of here, is it the producers of Goretex (hardly a low tech material) that are collectively run? Certainly it is one of that kind of company.

Hm, never heard of it. But I'll put in a counter-point anyway ;)

Just because one collectively run company works, does not mean that a bunch will, or you can make all your things in one big giant company, but that'd be messy.

Also, a boss would soon be required to coordinate all, then the entire thing would fall... or you could switch roles, but I don't think everybody would be boss material, but that's just me.

Notice how I am not spouting conservative propaganda? You should be proud :P

Well, I'm hardly a fan of punishing criminals*. Neutralising them so that they are unable to cause trouble for others or attempting to show them the error of their ways is a very different matter.


* for want of a better term.

Fine. I think we actually agree with each other quite a bit. How about the vague, but therefore more generally acceptable, "dealing with rule-breakers"? The point is that too many critics of anarchism somehow got the idea that anarchists would just shrug their collective shoulders and let them be.

Hm, never heard of it. But I'll put in a counter-point anyway ;)

Just because one collectively run company works, does not mean that a bunch will, or you can make all your things in one big giant company, but that'd be messy.

Also, a boss would soon be required to coordinate all, then the entire thing would fall... or you could switch roles, but I don't think everybody would be boss material, but that's just me.

Notice how I am not spouting conservative propaganda? You should be proud :P


Anarchy would allow bosses. A business is not a government.

Well that's just me, but answer me this.

How would you be able to produce cars, computers, and other complicated machinary?

Umm... The same way we do now? How does changing the power structure affect the human ability to apply knowledge?

Anarchy would allow bosses. A business is not a government.

But isn't anarchy about everybody being equal, no one man above the other?

Anarchy would allow bosses. A business is not a government.
On the contrary

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=government

1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
1. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
2. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
3. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.
9. Grammar. The influence of a word over the morphological inflection of another word in a phrase or sentence.

A business governs. It would therefore follow that a business is a form of government.

Hm, never heard of it. But I'll put in a counter-point anyway ;)

Ah: found something about it - not strictly collectively run, but a management model which does not ascribe to standard top-down models:

http://www.gore.com/about/culture.html

Just because one collectively run company works, does not mean that a bunch will, or you can make all your things in one big giant company, but that'd be messy.

It does show that alternative business models are however possible and can be profitable both from a purely financial standpoint and also from a productivity standpoint.



Also, a boss would soon be required to coordinate all, then the entire thing would fall... or you could switch roles, but I don't think everybody would be boss material, but that's just me.

Why would a boss be required? One could leave it to the different collectively run companies/factories to trade their goods between themselves in a free-market situation or to come together and through discussion and consensus decision making regulate exactly what roles and functions each performs.


If we look at the world at a global scale we see that there is no overall boss nation: yet the world somehow seems to struggle along regardless. Similarly if we look at the human body we find no central boss function - instead we find a balance between the competing demands and appetities of the many organs that constitute the body. There is much potential still unexplored in the realm of self-organising systems.

There will almost certainly be people who do not relish roles which you might describe as 'boss' roles, but once the strictures of traditional division of labour by job title is broken down such people could find their own level within a collective and responsibilities that they feel comfortable with.

Anarchy would allow bosses. A business is not a government.

No it wouldn't. Anarchism is opposed to all coersive authority.

I think it would be awesome to have a Mad Max style government. The first thing I'll do is get as far away from it as I can. Away from all those crazy anarchist people.

But isn't anarchy about everybody being equal, no one man above the other?


I'm certainly of the camp which does not recognise power without authority, and I see the prime (if not only) source of authority as the self. This means that I am free to delegate certain responsibilities to another - although they might appear to be performing the traditional function of a 'boss' this might not be the case. I may be very good at making shoes, but not very good at doing paperwork, and thus through agreement I and another could agree that I work full time at making shoes, while another person looks after the paperwork. We see here a division of labour, but it is one which is entered into through the consent of all those involved, and all are free to renegotiate their roles with each other.

Thus in a collectively run factory there might appear to be a division between 'blue-collar' workers and 'white-collar' workers, but all such are merely temporary working arrangements, rather than asymmetrical power-relations.

BOW, congratulations, this is the only time you'll hear this on the forums:

You win!

I was defeated by your large words and knowledge, by wish{sp} my teenage mind could not comprehend. It all made sense and now, I cannot put in a proper counterpoint. Bleh, I don't like debates anyway, at least this one did not degenerate into a flame war...

@Letila: That's what I tried telling him...

I'm certainly of the camp which does not recognise power without authority, and I see the prime (if not only) source of authority as the self. This means that I am free to delegate certain responsibilities to another - although they might appear to be performing the traditional function of a 'boss' this might not be the case. I may be very good at making shoes, but not very good at doing paperwork, and thus through agreement I and another could agree that I work full time at making shoes, while another person looks after the paperwork. We see here a division of labour, but it is one which is entered into through the consent of all those involved, and all are free to renegotiate their roles with each other.

Thus in a collectively run factory there might appear to be a division between 'blue-collar' workers and 'white-collar' workers, but all such are merely temporary working arrangements, rather than asymmetrical power-relations.
That's the style of capitalism that unfortunately lost out to corporations after the American Civil War.

BOW, congratulations, this is the only time you'll hear this on the forums:

You win!

Nah, the point of anarchism isn't win/lose as happens unfortunately under capitalism (although compared to some other systems it does at least escape from zero-sum games), the point of anarchism is to establish a win/win system for everyone.

That's the style of capitalism that unfortunately lost out to corporations after the American Civil War.

It does however live on in a great many small scale companies, which despite the march of corporations continue to hold their ground (although a great many do have asymmetrical power relations).

Do you have any response to the model employed by W.L. Gore & Associates outlined here? -> http://www.gore.com/about/culture.html

Nah, the point of anarchism isn't win/lose as happens unfortunately under capitalism (although compared to some other systems it does at least escape from zero-sum games), the point of anarchism is to establish a win/win system for everyone.

Eh, what I find funny is when people try to seperate the Bible from communism/anarchy. Because it's funny, the Bible wants exactly that... pure equality... heh.

Eh, what I find funny is when people try to seperate the Bible from communism/anarchy. Because it's funny, the Bible wants exactly that... pure equality... heh.
how the hell do you figure that?! the Bible specifically designates groups that are NOT to be considered equal, based on race, gender, or religious beliefs. hell, the Bible says that a man who's penis has been damaged or cut off shouldn't be allowed to enter a church...aparently the penis is a determining factor in how equal somebody can be :P.

Eh, what I find funny is when people try to seperate the Bible from communism/anarchy. Because it's funny, the Bible wants exactly that... pure equality... heh.

Well, that all depends on exactly how you interpret the Bible, but there are certainly those that see the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as a very real thing which it is possible to implement. Although not a religious person I certainly feel strong sympathies towards movements like liberation theology who apply a sort of hybrid Marxist-informed political/religious outlook to their work, but hey I don't want to derail this topic too far by crossing over into that kind of territory.

how the hell do you figure that?! the Bible specifically designates groups that are NOT to be considered equal, based on race, gender, or religious beliefs. hell, the Bible says that a man who's penis has been damaged or cut off shouldn't be allowed to enter a church...aparently the penis is a determining factor in how equal somebody can be :P.

But what if the penis was good in life? Like a Jesus penis?

In a world where morals are defined by right and wrongs, irregardless of laws, Anarchy will never be a system of government, or lack thereof one, that works.

how the hell do you figure that?! the Bible specifically designates groups that are NOT to be considered equal, based on race, gender, or religious beliefs. hell, the Bible says that a man who's penis has been damaged or cut off shouldn't be allowed to enter a church...aparently the penis is a determining factor in how equal somebody can be :P.


It also says:

"Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Which has been taken by some such as the Skoptzy sect (of which according to some sources Rasputin was a member) to indicate that self-castration for the good of the Lord is a noble thing. My point being? Biblical hermeneutics isn't a cut and dried thing.

That's the style of capitalism that unfortunately lost out to corporations after the American Civil War.

However, there are more people who can make shoes and fewer who are good at paper-work. Thus the latter can demand higher compensation.

Corporations are just companies that are owned by the public via stock/bonds.

But isn't anarchy about everybody being equal, no one man above the other?

While I was attending a physics seminar at the university today, a group of middle age workers came by to make repairs outside the room. They were quite loud and we had to close the doors to shut them out.

The point is -
No, you can't make everyone equal. It will never happen.

However, there are more people who can make shoes and fewer who are good at paper-work. Thus the latter can demand higher compensation.

If anything, I think you would find that there are many more people expert at doing paperwork than at making shoes.

While I was attending a physics seminar at the university today, a group of middle age workers came by to make repairs outside the room. They were quite loud and we had to close the doors to shut them out.

The point is -
No, you can't make everyone equal. It will never happen.

Call me dumb, but I don't see the conenction between your anecdote and your point.

but the productivity rates of an anarchist bnhsiness, so to speak, seem about as close to absolute zero. how many free flowing working agreements are there to build a multi faceted product like a car? sheesh. who decides who gets what part of the proceeds? arent; you in fact agreeing to a wage to do a role the same thing, yet much more efficient and a more efficient use of lesser and greater talents? sorry, i just plain reject this anarchist theory out of hand, sounds like gibberish for philosophers or when i am imbibing la ganja and trying to think deep, deep thoughts, frankly.

If anything, I think you would find that there are many more people expert at doing paperwork than at making shoes.
Wow. You don't have a very good grasp on the world do you?

Call me dumb, but I don't see the conenction between your anecdote and your point.
I do.

Wow. You don't have a very good grasp on the world do you?

How many people do you think spend their lives doing primarily paperwork (applying to any activity for which it is required) and are expert at it?

How many people do you think spend their lives working in one particular manufacturing role of producing shoes and are expert at it?

I do.

Explain it to me then.

Call me dumb, but I don't see the conenction between your anecdote and your point.


two things -

Class distinction through education, which would still persist if all wealth were redistibuted.
The people in the room could easily do the same job that the workers were doing, but not vice versa.

Are you suggesting that only a person with previous shoe making experience can become proficient at making shoes?

Are you suggesting that only a person with previous shoe making experience can become proficient at making shoes?

No, I used the word 'expert' on purpose.

two things -

Class distinction through education, which would still persist if all wealth were redistibuted.
The people in the room could easily do the same job that the workers were doing, but not vice versa.

Anyway - capitalism made perfect sense to me at that moment. And you can't make any excuses about not being able to afford school. All uni employees can take classes for free.

two things -

Class distinction through education, which would still persist if all wealth were redistibuted.

It is not neccessarilly the case that the children of highly formally educated parents will follow in their footsteps and also become highly formally educated themselves. Similarly, if we allow for free education there is no particular reason why children of less-highly formally educated parents will also only aspire to being less-highly formally educated.

The people in the room could easily do the same job that the workers were doing, but not vice versa.

This opens up the question of nature or nurture: if the workers had of received the same quality of secondary education as yourself, they may have been as equally equipped to deal with tertiary education as yourself.

I think you are also making assumptions about the workers. There are also many examples of people who do achieve a high level of formal education, but decide that they are happier working in more menial tasks - Northern Ireland (my home country) for example has a shockingly high level of women with Master's degrees that decide to stay at home and raise children. I myself have a Master's degree, but chose not to use it in my day-to-day work which involves skilled and specialised labour, but nothing that I was taught at university. It may very well be the case that one of the technicians/workers outside the lecture hall studied inside at an earlier point, but found himself happier working in a completely different field. Maybe I just move in a circle of well-educated professional under-achievers, but I know several such people.

It is certainly true that not all people are created equally, some have certain aptitutudes in certain directions, while others have aptitutdes in different directions. This does not however mean that we must value them differently as human beings purely on that basis.

Highly educated under-achievers don't help advance our society. Nuff said there.

Highly educated under-achievers don't help advance our society. Nuff said there.

Ah yes, but I was talking about 'professional under-achievers' - those who do not fit into the traditional models of working life, but are productive in other areas.

This opens up the question of nature or nurture: if the workers had of received the same quality of secondary education as yourself, they may have been as equally equipped to deal with tertiary education as yourself.
Uh..public high school?


I think you are also making assumptions about the workers. There are also many examples of people who do achieve a high level of formal education, but decide that they are happier working in more menial tasks


I've done my share of labor - there are very few that fit that mold. How many people are content making 8 bucks an hour when theyre 40?


I myself have a Master's degree, but chose not to use it in my day-to-day work which involves skilled and specialised labour, but nothing that I was taught at university.


Excuse me for asking, but what is your degree in, and what do you do?


Maybe I just move in a circle of well-educated professional under-achievers, but I know several such people.


So do you think they are entitled to same things as those who "make something of themselves?"

Excuse me for asking, but what is your degree in, and what do you do?

Philosophy & Sound engineering, respectively.



So do you think they are entitled to same things as those who "make something of themselves?"

See response to Opal Isle above: many of them 'make something of themselves' but in a way which is not recognised by the traditional model of working life.

Anarchy is the ideal situation, but it is not realistic given human tendencies. Fact of the matter is, even if there was no government, people would form into clans that had natural leaders and unwritten (or perhaps even written) rules or norms. This would be advantageous to people as a means of ensuring protection and accomplishing certain goals that one person couldn't do alone. Other systems are idealistic too and have failed because they neglect to factor in real humans (e.g. Communism).

Humans need government. Humans need government so much that they fight and die to protect the very government that strips away certain rights in order to make everyone more prosperous, safe, and happy. Anarchy may be the ideal in a perfect world; however, it isn't even close to realistic.

Humans do not need government. Humans created the concept of government. You could argue that human beings generally are more satisfied when there is someone above them with a truncheon telling them what to do, say and where to stick their morals, but I'd have to disagree with that.

Humans do not need government. Humans created the concept of government. You could argue that human beings generally are more satisfied when there is someone above them with a truncheon telling them what to do, say and where to stick their morals, but I'd have to disagree with that.

Very true. Human existance has been around so long alongside government, the two now seem inseperable. You can have a working society without laws and punishments and ruling bodies. At least, you could have a society with fewer of those things. A lot of this thread has been about anarchy destroying business. Anarchy has very little to do with business, as a worker choses to work at that business. I can leave my job anytime I want to. I can't just stop paying taxes or stop obeying laws. It's a question of authority. I willingly gave authority to my boss, but my political independence isn't even a choice I can make anymore.

Hmm.. Looking up at that, not much had to do with your post. Sorry about the rant.

One of the most common mistakes about Anarchism is that it assumes people are perfect. While this might be true of socialist anarchists it isn't true of libertarians. A libertarian society will perform better than a state given any level of evil. This is because if you assume people are evil then that has implications for govt as well as Anarchy: just look at North Korea, Russia or President Bush for that matter.

Edit/addition: my point is that Libertarians are neither naive nor idealistic.

Valid point, but I did say Marxism-Leninism, the model implemented in Soviet Russia. *scribbles down the quote anyway for reference*

Actually Leninism is a complete break from Marxism.