Anarchism

[-Yami-Kitty-]

Can Anarchism ever become possible? O_o.... I mean blah!

What do people here think of Anarchy anyways, and the government (I'm just speaking about American Government I guess)

Well...

I feel Bush doesn't understand any damn thing...

and...

Um... okay yea this is just.. pointless and worthless.

-Shoots self in head-
-Dies-

[GorillaBearBear]

For anarchy to work people would have to stop thinking of it as free licence to do whatever the fuck they want, like steal, burn, rape, kill etc. The idea of no law is not just so that people could run around destroying everything. For anarchy to work everyone - all 6 billion of them, would have to understand that they need to just set up a farm or a ranch and feed themselves.
This is the main reason it is never possible
The other reason is that if anarchy were to be instated, then you can rest assured that someone, or a Cabal of someones would try and grab the power as dictators. It's just not a sound idea.

[Mexican Pie]

Unless, of course, a country would just kill everyone else off, then flourish on Earth and never make the bad mistakes. Bleah...

Anarchy is kind of like having to do things- I don't think people would like to do that.

[Ferret Pie]

Anarchy would be great except for the fact that it could nevere woork seeing as some people would take advantage and go around robbing and killing. Eventually some form of order would emerge.
Anarchyt could only be maintained if there were still laws, perhaps enforced by robots...

[fat bear]

therefore, making it impossible to have anarchy for a long period of time without having some sort of set rules

[felp]

you could try controlled anarchy, where, you do have some rules, enforced by something that is completely impossible to corrupt (already my idea is flawed) in that murder, rape, harrasment (physical and possibly mental), stealing and slavedriving are against these rules, but practically anything else is okay, except money. Instead of money it goes back to a trade system, where say for example a musicion wishes to eat he/she could perform for some1 in exchange for goods/food, basically everything is gained through the use of eachother's talents and what not, a good farmer, farms, and basically gets whatever they want for their food, thus their possibly harder work is rewarded, this makes it harder for people to rise on top of one another, unless they own a mighty huge farm or something like that, but we then get another rule: no weapons of any kind, unless they are for artistic purposes, such as training in Martial Arts and so forth, this makes it harder for a military coup - remember the law enforcement is impossible to corrupt.. hmm we would still need basic consumer rights though, for example, drug creation would require the correct labeling and conditions underwhich the drugs are made and distributed.. and it would continue like this untill once again there are many laws. I guess if people were just good and trusted one another (with good reason to) we would be able to, but the reality is that there are too many evil people in the world - but if you believe what i do -> the um yung then i guess it makes sense (basically it's the yin yang). Still I think living amoungst a town with no rules, yet loving people who would never wrong one another would be the best possible experience we could hope to have, and it will never happen.

[fat bear]

but it is not anarchy if their are rules! there is no such thing as a "controlled anarchy!" thats like an oxymoron as well...
plus, the style of government in your "controlled anarchy" seems more like a commonwealth or one based on hierarchy

[felp]

umm no, if anything it's close to marxism, but then again no, because my style had abolutly no1 in charge - as in making up the rules, yes there was an entity to enforce it, but there is nothing there in power, and while yes it is an oxymoron, it doesnt matter, the fact that the word oxymoron exists is proof enough that there are things in existance which are oxymorons.
The whole idea of what i said "controled anarchy" means that I take segments from anarchy - as in no guide etc, nothing to force the people into doing something, people are pracitcally free to live however they want to, the only difference is that there are 1 or two things they cant do because it hinders other people's freedom. For you see technically we could be in anarchy right now, as people are all free to do what they want, we just have some people forcing others to do things, the people forcing are still free, but the people under them are not... if you follow me? Basically it's hard to say something is or isnt anarchy, because if analised enough it is all chaos, we just try to put rules together so we can understand it better... and i think i've gone on a tangent... yep sure have, well better sing the tangent song... oh i cant? Oh. why? Ahh I see... well that's fair enough I guess, my mistake, thanks for stopping me :)

[squealpiggy]

Anarchism relies too much on the cooperation of people. Never ever happen, we're not wired that way.

[ZekeyLizard]

Correct Snortlehog.

The only way anarchy would work would be if we were a perfectly normal sane race of pacifists. Which were not.

I hate pretty much all current Government, but I wouldn't resort to Anarchism.

Still I love that little "A" in a circle symbol

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by ZekeyLizard
Correct Snortlehog.

The only way anarchy would work would be if we were a perfectly normal sane race of pacifists. Which were not.

I hate pretty much all current Government, but I wouldn't resort to Anarchism.

Still I love that little "A" in a circle symbol

A perfectly normal sane race of pacifists with no claws, fangs, horns, speed at running, climbing ability or strength would not have lasted long throughout evolutionary history. The human race survived because of it's tenacity and brains, not for any other reason. The darker side of humanity is just as human as the cooperative side, and played just as big a part in ensuring the species' survival.

[Reddig]

Anarchy is not natural. People have a natural tendency for hierarchy, it's built in almost the same way as lust. Besides, a sosciety without hierarchy isn't possible, not even in anarchist ideals. You'd need a sosciety without connections between people for anarchism to be possible, otherwise it's only a controlled disorder.

[pie chicken]

GOVERNMENT SUCKS Democracy doesnt work we are all restricted by a power hungry bunch of asses

[squealpiggy]

Please back up any statements.

[SemiCircle]

ugh. some people.

as i'm sure we all know by now, people suck. we're selfish and mean and violent and megalomanic. everything we do, we do it for ourselves.
anarchy could work, but only if the individual saw no need to go after his neighbour's stuff, which would inevitably happen somewhere. once someone has more, other people want more. take queue jumpers: people start off queuing up nicely, and it's a fair system. but as soon as someone pushes past, the other people in the queue think "hey, that's not fair, he's in front of me now, he doesn't deserve that!" then most people just forget it, but one or two notice that he's got away with it, so they push past themselves, and eventually the majority of people are pushing and there's no queue at all any more.
the collapse of an anarchic system would be much the same.

no, the only system which can remain stable is one where there is some additional incentive not to "queue jump". this would be the government, or the police force, or the law courts, or whatever. the only reason for this is human nature, and there's not a lot that can be done about it.

[Zelutos]

All of you should read the book The Lord of the Flies it is a perfect example of what an anarchy does. Anarchy allows dictators to take advantage of a chaotic situation, since there wouldnt be security with no higher power to institute it people would want a leader.. a leader to make them feel safe. This has been proven for centruries, as a race humans are STUPID a person maybe be smart, but eternally people always depend on a single person or a group to lead them. if not for this we would run around as if chickens with out heads cut off. Anarchists may want the 'freedom' to do as they please, but they dont realize this freedom would be the downfall of humanity itself. No govt means no one guards the nukes, no one guards the weapons caches, no one monitors if someone is making an army, or nerve gas. Someone could unleash all of it just to destoy a world they see unfit for life. Remember this as you ponder, Anarchy didnt work back in the BC era, it wont work now.

[squealpiggy]

Anarchy works in some animals, but not with humans, as we are social primates. Look at it his way, most social animals work on a dominance basis, with a heirarchy. We are no different. Heirarchy enables the weaker animals to have less responsibility while rewarding the stronger animals with the benefits of being at the top (first choice for sex and food etc).

That's why evenin small groups we tend to gravitate towards a leader.

[Scribbly]

Anarchy would mean that nobody would do there jobs anymore, because everybody would be out fighting, killing, raping, whatever. This would mean: No TV!
So the real question is: could people live without TV? The answer is no, so I'm pretty sure there won't be total anarchy for at least maybe.. uhm.. 200 years.

[fat bear]

anarchy=no rules=impossible

even if there is no government, a person still has certain moral rules that he or she will accept to, even if they are a crazed cerial(err something like that) killer

[ZekeyLizard]

Yeah Snortlehog!

All sociable animals have a hierarchy of some sort.

People
Prairie Dogs
Ants
Bees
Naked Mole Rats
Barbara Streisands

[Ouroboros]

With no rules, basic services just wouldn't be available for the peaceful people, as they would be plundered by criminals, so only the very basic supplies you could collect/harvest yourself would be available. This means farm your own food, build and maintain your own well, or walk all the way to a river, and whatever else you could make with low supplies. And their is still nothing to stop some random person coming in at night and stealing/burning your crop. Anarchy doesn't work.

I'd be interested to hear pie chicken's reasoning for his little "statement".

[squealpiggy]

Pie Chicken's reasoning will be something akin to his/her mum and dad won't let him/her go to some party because there will be beer there. He/she now hates them and also the government.

[Alomie]

I get confused when it comes to Anarchy...

You see, Anarchy is to rebel against conformity, but by rebelling against Conformity you are just conforming to the Anarchy rule! so technically your not rebelling at all...

but if you are an Anarchist you are rebelling against conformity! ARGH! it just goes round in circles!
Help

[squealpiggy]

Anarchy and rebellion are different things. People that are rebelling latch on t anarchy because they think it's cool. All that anarchy is is an absence of government, therefore an absence of rules. Precisely why it won't ever work. I think I could trust myself to behave but I couldn't trust everyone.

And anarchy is different to Anarchism, which is more of an ethos of lack of involvement from government in day to day affairs.

"Anarchy" = ("an"=absence of)+("archy"=system of rule)

[evilsupernasty]

If you want a good theoretical social experiment on whether anarchism is possible, read The Dispossessed by Ursula le Guin.

And for a real life example, look to the Spanish anarchists during the Spanish civil war.

As a person with anarchist leanings, I don't think anarchism is a perfect social system, I just think it is better than the alternatives.

[SemiCircle]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
"Anarchy" = ("an"=absence of)+("archy"=system of rule)

damn straight. except "archy" isn't really "system of rule", rather sort of "position that the top banana holds", if you see the difference.

and the difference between anarchy and anarchism is a bit of a dodgy one. as far as i can make out, anarchy is a system of government (or lack thereof), whereas anarchism is merely the act of being an anarchist. (many thanks to dictionary.com for clouding the issue.)

[Ogilvy]

Originally posted by pie chicken
GOVERNMENT SUCKS Democracy doesnt work we are all restricted by a power hungry bunch of asses

Yawn...

[William Wallace]

Originally posted by Ogilvy
Yawn...

double yawn...

[Salty Samurai]

The only laws that should be held to code, are written upon five sacred scrolls, legible only to those who repent.

[squealpiggy]

The samurai were warriors, not priests so shut up about scrolls.

[Shave]

The Government doesn't work.
Anarchy doesn't work.
What the f*ck does work around here.


(i can't resist it anymore:

i am an antichrist-a
i am an anarchist-a
don't know what i want but
i know how to get it
i wanna destroy
possibly

thank you)

[GorillaBearBear]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
The samurai were warriors, not priests so shut up about scrolls.

Actually, this isn't strictly true either. Technically The samurai were the nobility of Japan. As nobility they all trained in the fighting arts, and were required to give there Daimyo soldiers when he asked. It was essentially like our Feudal system but a lot better because the nobiliy knew how to lead an army.

Sorry, that was way off topic.

[squealpiggy]

The samurai were the warrior retainers to the nobles, they were like the knights in Fuedal Europe, technicaly nobility but not the guys in charge. They usually served a lord who will spend much of his time petitioning the shogunate.

[Alomie]

Eh...

Anarchism confuses me...

as by "not conforming" to the regular rules of society! you are just conforming to the rules of Anarchism.. and it's all just a bit ironic if u ask me!!

:/ I'm confuesed! again!

[leeroy]

communism could have worked it didnt we have a great lesson to learn from that