So what? Do you think Cecil Rhodes cared if he caused all those problems? It was the Africans who had to pay for the problems not Cecil Rhodes. Same thing with American foreign policy or any other country’s foreign policy. Your country gains the benefit and the other country pays the price. That’s what happens when there are no laws. The biggest guys do what they want and the little guys get screwed.
And if there was no American government, California would be doing it to Oregon. And if there was no California government, Los Angeles would be doing it to San Diego. And if there was no local government, one neighborhood in LA would be doing it to the next neighborhood over.
If the citizenry regulate and enforce peace and civil order, what do you call that? I call it a government but you can call it a centralized authoritarian structure if you want. But either way, you no longer have an anarchy if people are organizing and enacting laws and enforcing them.
Nice people will. But not everybody is nice. Even if only one person out of a hundred is a criminal, the criminals will hurt all the nice people. Unless the nice people organize together to stop the criminals.
Doesn’t matter, contention is that Foreign Policy are not an authority, based on their own history and function.
Uhuh
Think you’ll find that law is essential in making all this work because state on state competition is predicated on taxes.
They already compete using the law as competitive apparatus, with real lives at stake. Local governments compete for money and all sorts of shit. The violence is encoded in law and inescapable whether you like it or not.
They already do - Niggas With Attitude say so. The law abiding state is already half in anarchy.
MrQwerty, let me be clear about this in case there is any confusion. If you start an anarchy zone, I, myself, am going to come take all your shit. If I have to beat you up first, I will. If I have to sneak up behind you and shoot you, I will.
You don’t have to guess and argue and wonder about whether someone will try to take advantage of you. I’m telling you right now that someone will, and that person is me.
There. It’s settled. Now no more arguing about how people will act or won’t act because you have a firm answer.
So you best not go through with this idea or I’ll make you pay for it, m’kay?
Well, we’ll see how you enjoy life with one testicle, then we’ll see what sort of attitude you maintain with none, and then if necessary we’ll say goodbye for ever.
What about a scientifically induced anarchy, in which the specific genes and areas of the brain and genes that influence hierarchical behaviour the most are tinkered with ?
We could maybe ask Robert Sapolsky for some ideas on this.
To save the pain of watching, Sapolsky describes a troupe of baboons in which the aggressive alpha males all got killed by a virus, leaving loads of females a and a bunch of chilled out males.
The alpha males never came back due to genetic drive, the baboon culture remains changed, and new baboons joining the new baboon anarchy end up chilling out and changing too. The cycle was broken.
I believe that was what we in the trade* call a joke.
Anyway Lemur866 has the right of it, as he usually does. A fully functional anarchic society of whatever flavor is, much like functional communism, a utopian pipe dream. They sounds nifty if we could just get everyone to do the right thing. But not everyone will and on human nature doth all utopia’s perish.
Yeah, it’s a joke that’s often told, and completely misses the point, as does referring to anarchism or communism as utopian experiments undone by so-called “human nature.”
Studying anarchism by just reading literature written by anarchists is likely to make you deluded. Anarchists only talk about the good side of anarchism and ignore its flaws. (Which is not unique to anarchists. People of all political ideologies do the same.) If you want to get a realistic view of anarchism you need to read both anarchist literature and anti-anarchist literature. Of course, reading literature that disagrees with your personal beliefs and, worst yet, points out the flaws and inconsistencies in your personal beliefs is an unpleasant experience. So most people choose to avoid it. Sticking to just reading more of what you already believe is comforting even if it’s not enlightening.