anarchism

[st.bot.32]

somewhere in between anarchy and decentralized government lies a much better solution to what we have right now.

i find the u.s. interesting because the redneck states can be all bible-thumping and get pissed every night while the liberal states can have much more liberal laws, even if they differ from that of the federal government

sure the system has become corrupted, but there is something to that idea

 

[restin]

Your not talking about anarchy your talking about ....... DEMOCRACY .

If there is no government, it is logical that then the people rule themselves which is democracy.

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

no, anarchy means without leader, people can agree upon a system of operation without an actual leader.

The difference would be that if the system of operation was broken for a good reason, then there would be no authority with which to punish them, authority, by its very nature must be obeyed, and so even if it is agreed that an 'illegal' action was both sensible and justifiable it must still be punished.

The fact that there are too many people simply shows the fallacy in big governments, the effects of a blanket law cannot possibly be forseen in every circumstance as there are an infinite number of situations in which they are relevant. Sensible people brought up in a co-operative society are fully capable of applying morality to any situation that arises.

And yes in a way it is democratic, however democracy, in the good old fasioned american sense is simply the tyranny of the majority. Why should responsible drug users be punished when they are doing no harm? Because the majority frowns upon drug abuse and does not differentiate it from drug use. The millions upon millions of people not in contact with responsible drug use only see drugs as the main stream media portrays them. It is impossible to believe that the majority can be so well informed as to make a decision upon every aspect of life. I know very little of polygamist marriages and so i do not say wether it is right or wrong, but democracy demands my opinion.

 

[ophiuchus]

no, anarchy means without leader, people can agree upon a system of operation without an actual leader.

The difference would be that if the system of operation was broken for a good reason, then there would be no authority with which to punish them, authority, by its very nature must be obeyed, and so even if it is agreed that an 'illegal' action was both sensible and justifiable it must still be punished.

american sense is simply the tyranny of the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

im not gonna argue with you what anarchy means, im just saying, that anarchy is not a guidelined system of government as you try to explain with:
"even if it is agreed that an 'illegal' action was both sensible and justifiable it must still be punished."

that's not anarchy, that's a non-established or non-officialized governing rule, that may or may not naturally occur as a result of a large landmass becoming anarchic. by the exact same logic, one region of a country may have that ruleset, whereas 50 miles any other direction may have the kill or be killed thought process, and take what they need.. neither of these rulesets are 'established', but the people who enforce whatever ruleset they create have created a government by definition.

 

[ophiuchus]

either way anarchy is impossible. because wherever there is a group of people, that group will create a system of efficiency in anything and everything they do... therefore if something is deemed 'inefficient' then the person who does that inefficient thing, over time, is going to either be looked at like an idiot, verbally told to not do that anymore, or physically restricted from doing that thing anymore. and THAT right there my friend is a governing principle, or a ruleset which controls a group, and therefore a system of government by definition :idea:

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

I disagree, i think that for an anarchist society to come about further moral evolution of humanity is required, i do not think all of us are yet ready for it. It is a difficult thing to concieve or even understand because of the was our societies are, we are taught that we need laws and that a governing body is a natural or inevitable thing. Anarchy is not stability, it is a state or perpetual revolution, thus no government could be established.

I think that for any one not to see how anarchy, not to beinsulting here, is the pinnacle of human developement is depressing. To believe that we are all so stupid and selfish that we need telling what to do is quite a depresing belief to have.

I would suggest for anyone who is interested to read a book called 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula Le Guin, or if your into philosophical books, some Bakunin, they can problem explain it to you much better than I

Just finally...

SOLIDARITY WITH OUR GREEK BROTHERS!

 

[ophiuchus]

but what is time? time is constant change. constant revolution. always coming full circle. if you really think and ponder the nature of anarchy as i have, then you will come to the conclusion that it is a paradox.

please show me a link to a definition that is evidence to your claim, and i'll show you how it actually correlates to mine. no offense here please, i just dont think you have considered all of the variables well enough...

non government is impossible. not having officialized, established government is possible (ie: america, russia, etc)but, somebody will always tell a group what to do, and somebody will always listen, this is nature. even if we do succeed in ascending in our intelligence, which would help us coexist, the paradox still remains...

 

[restin]

non government is impossible.

why?

 

[ophiuchus]

in a group, there are elders, and there are people younger. if we increased our intelligence, this would only facilitate "government"(synonymous to: direction, control, management, rule) in a sense that somebody(not necessarily, but usually elder) will govern anothers actions through influence or otherwise.


young people are always seeking advice, information, the best way to go about things. coincidentally, older people tend to be the ones with most of the answers. in this sense, if we are seeking advice on the best way to go about something, then the advice giver governs our actions, *to an extent.

this is not true in every instance, but can be generally accepted as true for a mass of people, no?

 

[ophiuchus]

i purposefully left some holes partially filled in my stance, assuming that you can fill them in... this is because i don't feel like posting a mile long philosophical response. if something is not clear, let me know, and ill try to help

 

[restin]

What you want to say is, that people want a leader, a guide?

In your country, the USA, the government is very authoritarian and symbolic. This means, that the president is a symbol for the whole country, he is a leader. Nonetheless, there are other countries, as Switzerland that do not have such a strong symbolic representation of the people in charge. There is no real leadership, no unity, no major influence. What I want to say is, that already today not all societies are dependent on a leader. Influence is and will always happen where people interfer but influence is not leadership. I influenced you to write this post but I do not lead you, do I? Of course, young people seek to find a certain value system but there is no government needed therefore. Family, friends, they all influence you and build your value system.

On the other hand, anarchism presumes a completely different value system.

If you are interested in anarchism, read V for Vendetta. The movie is OK but it has a completely different message, it is also quite defused. The comic is direct and is very complex. It is a classic.

 

[chimp_masta_flex]

There is a difference between listening to what your parents tell you and state opression. Of course there are always those who speak and those who listen, it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.

If i wanted to make myself some shoes im not going to refuse the advice of a cobbler on the grounds that no one can tell me what to do because im a free individual.

The difference is that not a single world leader, not Brown, Bush, Sarkozy, the pope, nor any of there lackeys knows ultimate moral truth and so when they tell people what is right and wrong they are simply imposing their will onto other people. This is what anarchism opposes, not experienced people helping inexperienced.

 

[GOD]

So you want democracy ?

 

[restin]

The difference is that not a single world leader, not Brown, Bush, Sarkozy, the pope, nor any of there lackeys knows ultimate moral truth and so when they tell people what is right and wrong they are simply imposing their will onto other people. This is what anarchism opposes, not experienced people helping inexperienced.

When did Brown last tell you what you have to do??

GOD: That anarchism,socialism and democracy are different and don't work together is propaganda from the capitalists. It is not a contradiction!

 

[ophiuchus]

What you want to say is, that people want a leader, a guide?

In your country, the USA, the government is very authoritarian and symbolic. This means, that the president is a symbol for the whole country, he is a leader. Nonetheless, there are other countries, as Switzerland that do not have such a strong symbolic representation of the people in charge. There is no real leadership, no unity, no major influence. What I want to say is, that already today not all societies are dependent on a leader. Influence is and will always happen where people interfer but influence is not leadership. I influenced you to write this post but I do not lead you, do I? Of course, young people seek to find a certain value system but there is no government needed therefore. Family, friends, they all influence you and build your value system.

On the other hand, anarchism presumes a completely different value system.

If you are interested in anarchism, read V for Vendetta. The movie is OK but it has a completely different message, it is also quite defused. The comic is direct and is very complex. It is a classic.

yes, i believe that humans naturally gravitate towards leadership, and i dont mean this in the sense that you used it earlier (ie: one leader), but in the sense of many leaders for many various things, you know, people who've "been there before". in the sense that people sometimes want to be told: what to do, what exactly they should do, in order to fulfill whatever purpose they have, for seeking that advice. you know? influence is sort of (but not 100% always) the force that guides the hand, the other variable, being the own persons judgement.

that description can be applied universally, from picking up chicks , to building a utopian society. basically when i speak of "government" on this thread, i mean government in the definition of the term, not in what we usually refer to as government. (ie socialism, democracy, monarchy, etc). but in reality, i believe that these two, seemingly opposite directions in the definition, are not so opposing, they overlap to a certain degree. i mean even anarchy and government overlap, even though they are presumed as opposites.

in a venn diagram, two circles overlap, they definitely have their own territory, but the also have that gray area in the middle.

i can explain the concept more as well but i think that it can be pondered by ones own logic (maybe not, im a little OCD ), but nevertheless if it's confusing i can clarify, just not now it wont make sense because im tired haha. maybe tomorrow.

another note, i use most terms by their whole definitions, or everything that the word encompasses. for example government, as you probably noticed. anarchy as well. and lastly leader.

when i say leader, i mean the force that *governs (govern by definition), be it person, people, advice, or a book, even a story (as long as they are influential in nature, causing a reaction that wouldn't have happened had the person not stumbled upon, seeked, or been forced upon the catalyst). nothing is exclusive in terms of something that can lead.

for instance, people are lead by the bible, and it governs many of there decisions.

"but influence is not leadership"

i believe that this is subjective, in that the influence turning into someones leadership, depends on the person. whether or not they want to accept this advice, or incorporate their own judgement and logic.
if you do not agree, please explain to me your point of view on how influence not being leadership (and im not saying 100% of the time, or 100% of the people) is objective. im geniunely interested[/i]

 

[ophiuchus]

another note (im rambling i know).

i believe that chimp is pointing out my example of the venn diagram in his last post

"The difference is that not a single world leader, not Brown, Bush, Sarkozy, the pope, nor any of there lackeys knows ultimate moral truth and so when they tell people what is right and wrong they are simply imposing their will onto other people. This is what anarchism opposes, not experienced people helping inexperienced"

this is true. nobody knows moral truth. but they are usually trying to help the majority, albeit usually with a bit more force than when you ask your friend for advice on picking up chicks.

 

[ophiuchus]

imposing and influencing are definitely two different things, you are right, but once again, the venn diagram will show their similarities at their given definitions

 

[restin]

I agree of course, that people are rarely pleased to be left in the middle of nowhere and are rather guided by some " person, people, advice, or a book, even a story (as long as they are influential in nature, causing a reaction that wouldn't have happened had the person not stumbled upon, seeked, or been forced upon the catalyst)".

But (I am also after-high now so I dunno if I really mean it) you sometimes need people to force to think themselves and give up their roles as followers. Followers are not forced to think and therefore will never learn.

Being in the middle of the desert is unpleasant but once you found your own way out, you have learned and you know that you did something. You are fully human, you can unfold. Going the own path is painful but in the end much *better*.

Maybe this is what anarchy is and maybe this is why everyone fears it.

Because it forces us to learn to be human. Go the own path but nor forget that you are a human in a human systems and need to take care of others.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

 

[ophiuchus]

i agree, totally. so, just as there is difference between following and leading, there is difference in anarchy and government, but not to say they don't both exist in a sense, but that they exist within each other, as a *real* scenario would depict, you can never have 100% of anything, so therefore you have a mix of both.

hence soccer (football) riots for anarchy, and wilderness tribes for government

i believe the fact of anarchy existing cannot be proven either way, just is the same for government. its all too subjective. it is like yin and yang, although, neither is good or bad truely, they both have a little of each other in them, if you know what i mean.

honestly i picked the side i did because im impartial on the issue and just wanted to present some topics that you might not have thought about, and have some presented to me that i hadn't, and i have to say i enjoyed it

 

[ob-noxious]

chimp, i believe that you have a very deep unerstanding of what libertarian socialism is all about. i also think that most other people take the concept way too literally. its about PEACE and EQUALITY! there can be and there are many different forms. no one has the right to define anarchy, so whats the use fightihg about that?
secondly, right now most of the world's societys have peoples heads screwed completely backwards away from anarchy. none of us know exactly how it will work, but it will.
vote jello biafra 2012.