Anarchy, Government & The Social Contract

[Avatar]

Nature abhors a vacuum and government loathes a man at liberty.

Hear hear.

--A

[Tjol]

Tjol, what you say has merit, however, I'm placing my vote away from Anarchy, because I know better how to survive under Capitalism/fnord Democracy and I'm satisfied with my life as it is, but, under Anarchy, person X, Y, Z or AA, might take me out becuase they want something of mine, more then they are worried that person M, N, or P will kill them back (Even though they'll be dead, so will I and my loved ones will have to live through it). Of course this could happen under the current system, but, my instincts tell me it's more likely to occur under Anarchy, since I've been living in the ghetto for 9 years now.

If you've been living in the ghetto under the half capitalist half socialist system we currently, anarchy wouldn't be half as much a system shock I don't think. It's really those who have had some advantage from the stability that would be looking dazed and confused.

I'm satisfied with my life as it is, but when questioning myself, I tend to ask if I've become complacent with a situation that I shouldn't be complacent with. On one hand I've gone from a childhood in ghetto type situations, to reasonable comfort in adulthood. On the other hand, the world's not revolving around me. The people who might achieve things in their lives that I don't have the capacity for? They're being supressed because they're too successful. The people who are resting on their forebearer's laurels, who will accomplish less with their lives than I will with mine? They're too big to fail. It certianly isn't the ideal.

But, as I mentioned before, the ideal usually can only be aimed for, it can be acheived with any of the given socioeconomic systems in existence. I in general opt for capitalism over anarchy and I opt for anarchy over marxism. Anarchy over marxism, because if the laws do not allow for individual freedom, I'd rather not have the laws. Capitalism over anarchy, because if available individual freedoms cannot be enjoyed for lack of resources, what's the point of having those freedoms?

So if we get to the point where the law is more important than the individual, I'd much prefer that everyone can gun down each other in the streets, rather than it being the sole priveldge of an elected or unelected few.

[Avatar]

So if we get to the point where the law is more important than the individual, I'd much prefer that everyone can gun down each other in the streets, rather than it being the sole priveldge of an elected or unelected few.

Agreed.

--A

[Vraith]

No system works because of the conflict and overlap between the sickness of power-seeking, and the socialized nature of respect [as opposed to inherent valuing]. Ok, it's way more complicated, we're not carrots, we're trees...we have lots of roots to our problems, not one big day-glo one that's easily spotted...but still...it is a MAIN root.

I recently saw a summary of a study that showed the ideal size of an effective group was six...allowed a variety of input, creativity both individual and cooperative, with lowest risk of both single tyrant and immovable partisanship...if true, right now, we'd have a billion nations of six people, grouped into clumps of six, in super-clumps of six...

HOLY CRAP....the apocalypse looms! All sixes...number of the beast...why do I hear horns? I'm starving, and have sprouted oozing sores...

[Avatar]

Part of the problem though is that we've never had a system in which all members believed in and worked toward the efficiency of that system. Never had a democracy only of democrats, a socialism only of socialists, etc.

--A