Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:Jeez, y'know what your guys problem is? You've been a country under a single government for so long that all you do is build up rules in some desperate acretion that's supposed to somehow keep anybody from being harmed, inconvenienced, blamed, offended or responsible.

There's more to life and living than making a law about which toilet you're allowed to use.

--A

Agreed. With all of the laws and ridiculous regulations, it breeds criminals. Because everyone is a criminal. Ah, the anarchist in me sings.

Kaydene wrote:

Avatar wrote:Jeez, y'know what your guys problem is? You've been a country under a single government for so long that all you do is build up rules in some desperate acretion that's supposed to somehow keep anybody from being harmed, inconvenienced, blamed, offended or responsible.

There's more to life and living than making a law about which toilet you're allowed to use.

--A

Agreed. With all of the laws and ridiculous regulations, it breeds criminals. Because everyone is a criminal. Ah, the anarchist in me sings.

Just remember, it was the Anarchists that kicked off WWI by offing the Arch-Duke.

Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

Was there ever really a time when someone wasn't in charge? Anarchy doesn't always have to stem from violence to result in looting, rape, and murder. It's an extreme view, sure, but the principle is that people know how to do what is good for them without a governing body taking their money and dictating it to them. *shrug* Seems reasonable.

(This may be off-topic. Or not. )

Kaydene wrote:

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

Was there ever really a time when someone wasn't in charge? Anarchy doesn't always have to stem from violence to result in looting, rape, and murder. It's an extreme view, sure, but the principle is that people know how to do what is good for them without a governing body taking their money and dictating it to them. *shrug* Seems reasonable.

(This may be off-topic. Or not. )

Ummm....there's also the point that having someone in charge causes rape, murder, and outright enslavement. [whether it's little groups or gov'ts, or popes or high priests/kings.]

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

That's chaos, not Anarchy Anarchy does not mean lack of order, but lack of a governing body telling everyone how to live. Social contracts would still be enacted, as people would find them useful. Order would still be enforced, but instead of some system of law enforcement being there to enforce 'law', each member of the community that has entered into the social contract would be enforcing it. This is because the member would want the same treatment. Sounds utopian, but in a model similar to the theory (tribal) it has been observed that instances of crime is lower then in models that utilize governing bodies.

Of course, like any other system, the transition to Anarchy would probably not be a peaceful one... the powers that be can not stand to let anyone live their own lives.

Spain was run quite effectively under a principle of anarcho-syndicalism for several years, until, between Franco and the Russians, they were overthrown.

Personally, I'm a rational anarchist. Unfortunately, I know that people in general are not (have not been allowed to become?) responsible enough to do it. It can work. As Orlion points out, Anarchy does not mean lack of order. What it means is society running on a principle more like that of a corporation.

Under anarcho-syndicalism, everybody in the syndicate is bound by common purpose. The people are the share-holders, they elect the board of directors whose job is to serve the interests of the share-holder by achieving the common purpose. If the MD doesn't serve those interests, or fails to do so effectively, he's replaced by somebody else who is empowered to carry out the wishes of the share-holders. They also negotiate with other syndicates to obtain what they want, and provide what they offer. sorta like unions, but vertical, not horizontal

I think I'll split this into a new topic.

--A

Orlion wrote: That's chaos, not Anarchy Anarchy does not mean lack of order, but lack of a governing body telling everyone how to live. Social contracts would still be enacted, as people would find them useful. Order would still be enforced, but instead of some system of law enforcement being there to enforce 'law', each member of the community that has entered into the social contract would be enforcing it. This is because the member would want the same treatment. Sounds utopian, but in a model similar to the theory (tribal) it has been observed that instances of crime is lower then in models that utilize governing bodies.

I actually like this kind of thinking in general, and in theory. Unfortunately, it fails in practice in the face of power behaviors...at least in part because we approve of "lead dog" qualities in many manifestations.
I personally believe anyone who seeks power over anything but their own soul is either sick or terrified.
Alas, that is most of us to at least some extent.

Vraith wrote:

Orlion wrote: That's chaos, not Anarchy Anarchy does not mean lack of order, but lack of a governing body telling everyone how to live. Social contracts would still be enacted, as people would find them useful. Order would still be enforced, but instead of some system of law enforcement being there to enforce 'law', each member of the community that has entered into the social contract would be enforcing it. This is because the member would want the same treatment. Sounds utopian, but in a model similar to the theory (tribal) it has been observed that instances of crime is lower then in models that utilize governing bodies.

I actually like this kind of thinking in general, and in theory. Unfortunately, it fails in practice in the face of power behaviors...at least in part because we approve of "lead dog" qualities in many manifestations.
I personally believe anyone who seeks power over anything but their own soul is either sick or terrified.
Alas, that is most of us to at least some extent.

It's only because of this cultural idea of a "lead dog" that this seems impractical with a lot of people. Few want to take control of their own destinies and will gladly suffer tyranny to avoid it.... and unfortunately there are plenty of people willing to deal out that tyranny.

BTW, I like your view on someone who seeks power... I'll have to steal it for Facebook!

Anarchy....................Hmmmmmm sort of like ..............capitalism?

Kaydene wrote:

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

Was there ever really a time when someone wasn't in charge? Anarchy doesn't always have to stem from violence to result in looting, rape, and murder. It's an extreme view, sure, but the principle is that people know how to do what is good for them without a governing body taking their money and dictating it to them. *shrug* Seems reasonable.

(This may be off-topic. Or not. )

*pure* anarchy isn't chaos, it's harmony. It's everyone being able to exist in a society without law and rules because we know how to behave and can exist harmoniously. This is the world an anarchist dreams of. Of course, it's impossible, at least on the scale of modern society. But it's nice to remember that government wages war on it's own citizens on a daily basis. The nice thing about democracy is that we have some tools to fight back. (like a free press, right of assembly, voting)

Rawedge Rim wrote:

Avatar wrote:Yeah, that was just the trigger though. The actual causes were a lot more complicated.

--A

Oh I understand it that, but the Anarchist theory never actually seems to pan out does it. Introduce anarchy and you get the worst kind of brutality, look at the various disasters where authority has broken down, the looting, rape, murder, and outright enslavement.

But what if the consequence of anarchy in the short term, is actually more pallatable than another day of things as they are? When does the state of things recommend anarchy as the better state of existence?

I don't think we're there yet, but for the past decade or so, I've been fascinated with why the American Revolution was able to keep anarchy in check, while the french and soviet revolutions completely lost their handle. Because I think in the next fifty years or so, we head towards anarchy, even if we can't conscionably involve our own hands in it, even if we were to try to actively subvert it. And when the levee breaks, we better know on some societal level, how to steer the waters away from all the people who are threatened to be drowned by it.

You still seem to be thinking of anarchy as the people running wild and doing whatever they want. It's actually more like nobody running wild, and people doing whatever they want as long as they accept the consequences.

However, as I said, it also requires the responsibility that encouranges people to work together toward a common good, which good also serves their own interests.

In other words, it requires rationality.

--A

.......Aaaaaghhh Libertarians!

Avatar wrote:You still seem to be thinking of anarchy as the people running wild and doing whatever they want. It's actually more like nobody running wild, and people doing whatever they want as long as they accept the consequences.

However, as I said, it also requires the responsibility that encouranges people to work together toward a common good, which good also serves their own interests.

In other words, it requires rationality.

--A

I think though, in this current day and age, if Anarchy were to be implemented on a large scale (IE: Outside of a small area of like minded people) the end result would be at least as likely to become either Chaos or Totalitarianism as it would be to become harmonious

Sure. But that's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of people too irresponsible to deal with freedom.

--A

Avatar wrote:Sure. But that's not the fault of the system. It's the fault of people too irresponsible to deal with freedom.

--A

True, and there's nothing wrong with Star Trek Utopian Socialism, it's a fantastic system where everyones needs are met and nobody wants for anything, but, Humans are too greedy and power hungry to implement it, an attempt at doing so would prove to be distatrous

Maybe we just need to get rid of a whole big bunch of the humans first.

--A

Avatar wrote:You still seem to be thinking of anarchy as the people running wild and doing whatever they want. It's actually more like nobody running wild, and people doing whatever they want as long as they accept the consequences.

However, as I said, it also requires the responsibility that encouranges people to work together toward a common good, which good also serves their own interests.

In other words, it requires rationality.

--A

It always starts with people running wild. That's always the transition from a government to anarchy, and that's why almost inevitably, some form of government is born out of any period of anarchy. Anarchy doesn't usually last long enough for everyone to settle down and agree on mutually respecting (for lack of better words) each other.