ok, can someone tell me about the “science” behind anarchy. cause i just see it as a way to end civilization as we know it, and i dont like shitting on the ground.

What kind of science do you want to hear about? Anarchy is a political philosophy that, based on your essay’s conclusion, I suspect you might be extremely misinformed about. As such, physics or chemistry won’t supply sufficient answers for you. Economics, psychology or even some philosophy might be better areas for you to search for illumination in but I’m not sure you have the necessary aptitude or self-discipline such an endeavour would require. However, you can easily prove me wrong by sticking around through the thread and displaying an evolving and ultimately sophisticated grasp of the issues. At which point, I’ll gladly eat my words.

Your view of anarchy is the popular but very much secondary definition of anarchy; chaos, no rules, d00dz smashin’ shit up… and stuff. I can understand and empathise with your dislike of shitting on the ground but an anarchic social or economic order isn’t a prerequisite for it and it isn’t an indicator of it either. Totalitarian, command economies like Myanmar, capitalists like the Philippines and primitive, feudal societies like like the one that Liberia has regressed to all have their… ground shitters and all have orders as far removed from a true anarchy as can be imagined.

A good primer can be foundhere with a simple overview of the philosophical origins and development as well as a description of the factions and variances within anarchist theory.

Have a quick flick through it and just pick one thing that strikes you as outrageous/interesting/illogical or in some way worthy of highlight back here.

Here’s hoping you do come back.

The political theory is more accurately referred to as anarchism, which advocates anarchy, which means the absence of a hierarchical system of government, not “chaos” as is commonly believed.

Well, the question that comes to most people’s minds is ‘How will an absence of a hierachical structure prevent chaos.?’

What will stop people from forming marauding gangs that prey on groups of people that cannot defend themselves?

Hierarchical structures were not effective in preventing the Europeans from marauding and preying upon the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, Australasia or even each other. In fact, those structures aided in their successful conquest and subjugation of those peoples. The Zulus and Maoris could have handled any of the gangs you speculate about, the British Empire was far more successful and ravenous.

The hierarchical structures in place today are doing a shitty job of defending the Acehnese from predation by Exxon Mobil or the Karen from the Socialist junta in Myanmar.

Hierarchical structures do a terrible job of defending the vulnerable and the systems of North America and Western Europe are very much the exception with regard to egalitarianism and their defense of their underclasses.

Not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that the native structures were inefficient to prevent intrusion?
In that case you rather prove my point.

Uhm, because they had more efficient power structures?

I agree with you that scores of people aren’t sufficiently protected from predation by ‘big buiseness’.

And why are they an exeption?
Because the underclasses organised themselves into unions and socialist/communist movements that were prepared to fight for their rights.

Order is the disease, disorder is the symptom.
The more order you enforce on nature, the more disorder appears.
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
Chaos is the state of health.
God is an anarchist.

You mean like the US military attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?

No I mean me shoving a Kalashnikov up your nose and taking your supplies.

During my brief dabble in anarchism, I believed (much like many libertarians do) that people would basically grow with responsibility. If people were given the freedom to do whatever they wished, they would ultimately start acting in everyone’s best interest, thus neatly doing away with the need for laws, police and the like.

I do not believe those things any more. Now, I believe most people are stupid, dangerous animals and that anarchism would bring with it the end of civilization. But hey, if it’s tested and it works, I’ll be the happiest guy in the world.

Oh, and Roger_Mexico: How about posting some actual arguments supporting your position rather than meaningless assertions and small-minded, irrelevant jabs? Just a thought.

Ah, I start to see now.
So how do they envision the world?
Will there still be nations or will everyone live in small autarchic communities?

Anarchism is hardly a unified, organised political movement, so there’s no single answer. But I find it hard to believe that any kind of “nation” could function under anarchism, so it’s probably mainly the latter.

You would have just started a hierarhical system based on force. No more anarchy once you do that.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
All it takes is one ‘spoil sport’ (that being me) for the whole idea to collapse.
I can’t escape the notion that this whole thing is just head in the clouds wishful thinking.

Latro, anarchism is more subtle than that, but I still believe it is an ultimately unworkable system.

It relies on ‘the community’ (this is what really seperates it from libertarianism, as the philosphy of the anarchists is not, contrary to popular belief “anyone can do whatever they want”) to enforce laws, so for example in your example the robber would be tracked down and tried by the members of that ‘community’.

Kind of like communism and democracy and socialism pretty much every cracy and ism except the worst ones.

Democracy is just an ideal. I think that anarchy is a higher ideal.

There of course is the possibility of cooperation w/o hierarchy.

Latro, I think we’re arguing at cross-purposes here. My entire point is that hierarchical structures serving the purposes of proportionately tiny elites are perfect for dominating and exploiting the lower strata of those within (like the working poor of America or SE Asia) and outside the structure (like the Karen or Acehnese).

This is the issue that anti-authoritarian approaches like libertarianism and anarchism try to address. It seems to me that you’re saying, “Well then, how do you propose we setup a society that can dominate its neighbours and members?” The answer is obvious and easy; Soviet style totalitarianism or the more enduring and sophisticated corporate capitalism that is ascendant today.

However, I don’t think that’s good enough. Preferably, we look for a way to organise so as to do away with dominating structures. It seems to me that your defense of hierarchy extends only to, “Well they’re just a necessary evil and without them the world will descend into a Hobbesian chaos.”

It’s not much of a defense and shows a tragic pessimism about human nature.

So lemme get this straight. You consider that if it weren’t for governments of the world pointing a gun at your head, you would be a marauding thief?

Tragic, maybe. Well-founded, certainly.