I don’t get all these kids these days (im only 16 myself) who are all into anarchy. It sounds cool at first, just the word and the symbol they use, but once you really think about it, it makes no sense.
You’d have to fight for everything (anarchists love to fight, though), but the fighting would be with guns and such. There would probably be militia groups who would extort people who were weaker. And in a month or two of anarchy, a leader would rise up and unite people anyways. Most people want security and easy living, that’s why anarchy would never work.
And plus, even if you were an anarchist, you would get tired of not being able to sleep soundly at night. You would fear for your life and the life of your companions, as night raiders roam the wastes looking for an easy meal.
You may think this belongs in the BBQ pit, but i think it could be made into a debate.
Every person should be free to pursue his own happiness in his own way, so long as he conducts his affairs peacefully and honestly. Every political context, save one, robs people of those rights that God or nature gave to them.
Most real anarchist don’t really think it would work, either(at least the ones I used to hang out with). They view it as goal to move towards that will never be fully reached, at least not any time soon. The primmary Idea is not what the a lot of people think. The idea is to try and evolve as a society to the point where less and and less governmment is neccesary. To where people take responsability for themselves, and respect each others right to live thier life as they wish. Incidently, in the ideal anarchist society, someone who did not respect other peoples rights, say a rapist, or a thief would be face the wrath of the entire comunity. I remeber Jello Biafra talking about living as much as possible to where you didnt need a baby sitter…So that the government didnt have to interfere in your life. Anarchy, for the poeple I knew, was more of a philosophy of life, not something to actually try to achieve. At least for now, most them were pretty much libertarian in what they wanted to achieve government wise. As little government as possible. The government should exist to pave the roads, deliver the mail, and defend the borders. Not to interfere with its own peoples lives directly, any more than neccesary.
The thing you will hear from anarchists is that “any government will evetually become a self-serving entity, and the enemy of the people it was created to protect”. The thing is, they know that if the government was deystroyed tomorrow, That it wouldnt be 5 minutes before someone built another one, and it would probably be worse than what we have now.
I don’t know, I am aware that almost every single person in my state can own a gun, and I am also aware that I live in a society where the police are under no obligation to risk their own lives in trying to defend the life of another.
I sleep ok. What about you? I don’t even lock my door when I’m home.
I think you watch too much TV.
bdgr, 100 points for discussing Jello Biafra. There aren’t near enough people who even know who he is. Kudos on everything else, as well, I could have never said anything that compact to the same effect.
Anarchy is a flawed idea. It can never be realized because the assumptions which support it (everyone would steal and go bonkers) are inherently wrong.
As bdgr alluded to earlier, all actions have repercussions, and I believe that laws and order largely work to protect the wrongdoer. (Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is a lot worse than any judicial system.)
The hierarchical social structure exists only as a shared belief system–those structures don’t exist except in our heads. At any given moment, you are free to do anything you are capable of doing, and the other people in your environment are similarly free; so anarchy is not a flawed idea, it is a recognition of that natural fact.
We do, however, need structures, order, a pattern of predictability and dependability. And in the absence of a better one, we tend to give the nod to the traditional hierarchy of people in a pyramid of authority over each other. That does not by any means prove or even indicate that we would not do as well or far far better with a different structure that did NOT posit people over other people, as long as that different structure provided predictability, dependability and order.
If you had that, you would, by definition, fail to have an anarchy.
Any SYSTEMATIC, ORGANIZED use of coercion or violence is an “archy”.
Thanks. I have all his spoken word CD’s. I cant agree with everything he says, but the man is brilliant. Jello for President! I think what he has to say on squatters rights is great. For those of you unfalmilar, here was his platform for last election
As my UserNamesake pointed out, people in social situations are inevitably forced into society and a social contract. In any encounter with another human being there are rules of conduct; one is governed by instinct, if nothing else. If not, there would be nothing differentiating people from animals. Even in a situation without government, there are other units. Families, for instance, are as native to people as the desire to eat and sleep and make farting sounds when your fat neighbor adjusts himself. People are motivated by a survival instinct if nothing else. Take, for instance, Native American society. Although they did have leaders, most decisions made were on a pretty much consensual basis. Even if there is no written law, there exists unspoken law. Perhaps God is the only true Anarchist.
I can’t tell you how often I say this, and how much resistence I get from it!
I often wonder about this myself. I agree with the premise that we are organizing creatures and will come to create artifical constructs in order to deal with reality (our newest SDMB philosopher mentioned it below with regards to the social contract) but I disagree that explicit or implied force is necessary for human interaction. I think this is the commonly understood defninition of anarchy, as you mention below. As such, anarchy doesn’t represent Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome (or even the first Mad Max).
Armed raiders does not an anarchy make!
No God, gods, Goddess, or goddesses which rely on fear and supernatural force to get humans to act a certain way is any more an anarchist than a roving band of thieves.
Thats pretty much the whole point of the anarchist philosophy. To allow the natural “rules of conduct” to enforce themselves. We, as a society, are not there yet. but it is goal to work toward. To have people take responsability for their own actions, and have respect for the people around them, so that no artificial outside force is neccesary to babysit you and make you behave. Aint gonna happen any time soon, but it is an ideal to strive for.
I remeber having read books wrote by major anarchy theoricists from the second part of the XIX° century. It was really a long time ago, so I don’t remember the specifics. But it was much more elaborated that just saying “evrybody does as he pleases”. It was much more related to a form of social contract, though very different from the usual constitutional/democratic system we are used to.
So, I believe your statements make few sense, since they refer to a view of anarchy which has nothing to do with what it is really supposed to be (not to say that some people could claim they’re anarchists without having more knowledge than you and me about it)
Of course, it doesn’t apply to libertarians, whose political philosophy has very different basis. Ive no clue about the way they view an ideal society.
One of the problems is that run into a bunch of kids who think anarchy means “do as you will shall be the whole of the law”, and they havent a clue what the movement is supposed to be about.
If you’re interested in the thoughts of one of best-known intellectuals to espouse an anarchist, or libertarian-socialist viewpoint, go here. It is an interview in which Noam Chomsky outlines some of his views on the subject, and where he also compares it to some other political philosophies. You can also follow the links at the bottom of the page to a few other places where Chomsky expands on these views.
One of the most concise statements Chomsky has made about his own goals and visions, and about the role that anarchism might play in a future society, come from his book Power and Prospects, sections of which can be found here. I have quoted some of this below, as i think it gives a good overview of where Chomsky’s vision of anarchism stands within broader historical context, and how it is in some ways contradictory to what his goals are for the immediate improvement of society. (If you want to skip the historical context and go to the core of his goals and visions, go to the bold text.)
And to those who have hinted in this thread that anarchism automatically equals violence, learn what you’re talking about before you sound off with half-assed opinions. There are indeed some anarchists who believe in gaining their ends through armed conflict. But there are capitalists who believe the same thing - they’re called military officers and politicians. There are also considerable numbers of anarchists who are strict pacifists.
If an alien were to come down from outer space and use the United States as an example, it might conclude that capitalism automatically equals violence, given the number of violent deaths in this country each year and the considerable involvement of the US in conflicts abroad.
Or even what that phrase is supposed to philosophically represent, for that matter.
Aleister Crowley was possibly most famous for that line (if not “Every man and woman is a star”) and yet most people who use it consistently fail to understand its implications or intentions.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will.
(actually, he was a fan of capitalization of words to imply stronger meaning, but there you have it anyway)
Good stuff, mhendo.
The problem with anarchy is that it’s an unnatural state. Anarchy is incapable of sustaining itself.
Say you took a million strangers and put them together on a island with sufficient goods to sustain them. You’ve now created an anarchic state under ideal circumstances. It’ll never last.
Within a matter of days, despite an abundance of supplies, some people will decide they want more than their equal share. That’s human nature. And despite the absence of any existing organization, some people will start to hang together in small groups. That’s also human nature. Very soon these two principles will overlap, and some groups will realize they can appropriate more than their share of goods by taking them from individuals or smaller groups.
The islanders will divide up into three classes; organized predator groups, organized defensive groups, and victims. From this point on you have a tribal society which might evolve into larger and more static goverments but you’ll never see anarchy again.
I disagree strongly. I would think the largest part of anarchy is that it relies on a social structure which does not require a government. I don’t think any anarchist tries to envision that there still won’t be order amongst peoples. Hell, on that count anarchists couldn’t even communicate with language because it imposes an artificial restriction on interaction.
No, I think the key is that anarchists want a people to interact solely on the so-called social contract, without a need for an explicit police force, government (in any form, tribal or constitutional, etc), or other such permanent and oppressive structure.
Seeing as I get by every day without police contact, government interaction, and other such affairs I don’t find anarchy unthinkable. The question then becomes: what do we need to do to ensure that people can live without force acting as a motivator?
The problem is that force doesn’t require consensus to be effective; it works unilaterally. And if a few people decide to organize together to use force more effectively, the only effective response to that is for their potential victims to organize together to resist them. So everyone ends up being organized or victimized. I don’t know how others define anarchy, but a society in which virtually everyone is a member an organized group stretches the definition beyond recognition.
The only way anarchy would work would be if every single person voluntarily chose to never take unfair advantage of any other person. I can’t envision any society of humans like that existing in the real world.
A well organized society works to minimize the confrontational aspects of government. But they exist just the same. When you stop at a red light or pay sales tax when buying an ice cream cone, you’re participating in government activities. For that matter, even if you ran the red light or lived in an area where ice cream isn’t taxed, you’d still be driving on a government built road and buying your snack with government issued currency. In modern society, government is the water we fish swim in.
It sounds cool because most 16 yr olds don’t have to worry about where their food and shelter comes from. To a 16 yr old, parents, cops, and other authority figures are just things that prevent them from hanging out late drinking and smoking pot.
[/QUOTE]
In any case, there are 3 definitions of ‘anarchy’:
a: absence of government - Simple enough. The president, congress, police, firemen, courts, Department of Motor Vehicles, schools all disappear. Great news if you don’t like having the man in you face. Problem is, it leads to…
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority - Think Somalia in the early 90s. Basically, without any central government, you end up with warlords and ‘might makes right’ law.
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government - Problem with this is that it is mostly utopian philosophical BS. In order to support a population of any size, there needs to be a way of coordinating things like the building of roads and the distribution of resources. As soon as you have someone in charge who says “this road goes here instead of over there”, government has formed.
You don’t really get by without government interaction unless you live in a cabin out in the woods. Your roads, electricity, gas, and food all get to you because of some kind of government maintained infrastructure. Could it all be done by privitized corporations? Probably, but I don’t think a country run by corporations would be an improvment over having a government.
Kudos on everything else, as well, I could have never said anything that compact to the same effect. 