Anarchy

[KillerChi]

Your thoughts?

If there is no law, people will want power, Dictators would rise. Look at ghettos for example, where tends to be less to no law, people try to take over, violence would rise.

I've been trying to google the reasons supporting Anarchy, they're hard to find.

 

[ElderKingpin]

whats the debate.

1. You didnt try at all. to support any side and
2. People will go into chaos if they are not controlled. what makes you think anarchy would work

 

[Jimpy]

Your thoughts?

If there is no law, people will want power, Dictators would rise. Look at ghettos for example, where tends to be less to no law, people try to take over, violence would rise.

I've been trying to google the reasons supporting Anarchy, they're hard to find.

That's cause realistically there aren't any good ones.

whats the debate.

1. You didnt try at all. to support any side and
2. People will go into chaos if they are not controlled. what makes you think anarchy would work

Insightful.



I've always, and hopefully others, thought of anarchy as a word to describe a social trend that occurs in moments of weakness within a community or grouping of people where infrastructure is lost.

Anarchy being a response to something; reactive, not ever as a goal to strive for; which would be proactive.

Sort of brings things down to the lowest common denominator and people basically fend for themselves, then someone stands out and either ostracizes people or tries to rally, and suddenly anarchy lifted.

Then slow climb back to infrastructure of a society, and anarchy is abolished as a result.

 

[Ninja_sheep]

sigh

What outcome you expect of this thread?

 

[Zakyath]

Just about the same as all the other ideology-threads. "It's perfect in the theory but can't work in real life because man isn't perfect", then tons of pages of people pulling arguments against anarchy and a few persons who believe in the good within man.

 

[Ninva]

How the hell is anarchy perfect? It's about killing people because you don't give a shit. I've read the essays. That's the heaviest argument: a person should have to right to take care of business on his or her own terms. Anarchy in my opinion is no way to live. It's regression in our progression, yet Big Brother is also a permanent digression. So is there something in between? Yes, democracy.

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Yet none of us will strive for anarchy, because we know the world should never live as one.

Also, it'd be hard to establish any organization. Without a leader, there won't be followers. What if an ice age began to destroy our race? What would we do? We'd form tribes and kill each other for food. Intellectual progress will never occur in anarchy.

You'll forever be blind to whatever your brother says. Do you enjoy being atheist? Well, imagine prophets of new gods start appearing. You can't force them to stay away if you're all for anarchy. Then you'll have religious orders again. The common outlook on anarchy is hypocritical, and it'll never work the way an anarchist will want it to.

... I remember someone who supported peace and anarchy told me that they'll come to my house and kill me after I broke up with her friend, so I merely took a different route home the next day. Gosh, this subject gets me so upset sometimes.

 

[DM Cross]

Anarchy is, in my opinion, the actual definition of "freedom". Democracy [at least, our democractic nation] claims to be the home of the free and we're definitely the most free of almost any nation, but we do have laws. We do have restrictions. We don't have "true freedom", we have "freedom with circumstances", at best.

That being said, "freedom with circumstances" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Circumstances keep people from killing me for my money or clothes when I go into NYC. It keeps people from stealing from my company when they're leaving work. Etc. etc.

 

[Ninva]

We do have restrictions. We don't have "true freedom", we have "freedom with circumstances", at best.

Anarchy would develop restrictions. If someone raped a father's daughter, that father would want to kill the guy. Who's going to stop the father? If someone tries, that person might get killed too.

 

[DM Cross]

But all parties are free to do what they want, though. The rapist and the father are both to do their things [one being rape and the other being vengeance killing]

I'm not saying "true freedom" is a good thing, mind you. Just that "true freedom" is really, by definition, anarchy.

 

[Ninva]

I'm not saying "true freedom" is a good thing, mind you. Just that "true freedom" is really, by definition, anarchy.

You are loosely using the phrase freedom without consequences. If there is an absolute freedom to do anything, then man could rape a person and then get killed but also be alive because he didn't wish to die. The freedoms of the two individuals, the rapist and the murderer, overlap each other. Neither of the two will get their way unless someone dies willfully.

 

[KillerChi]

Anarchy is true freedom. Freedom means no restrictions/obligations. Though, it's chaning meaning because all of the people who call America "Free".

 

[DM Cross]

Well, obviously there is no such thing as the kind of freedom where "I want to live forever" is possibile merely because someone wants it.

I don't even consider that an issue of Freedom, but Desire.

 

[Ninva]

Anarchy is true freedom. Freedom means no restrictions/obligations. Though, it's chaning meaning because all of the people who call America "Free".

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.

The physical restraint is your death as a consequence for doing "wrong." Anarchy is not true freedom, friend. If someone wanted to punish you for being attractive, they could kill you because they had the freedom to do so. You have no say to the conflict. You either kill the person before he/she kills you and face those consequences of being a killer or try to run away or die. This is your true freedom.

 

[UnknowVector]

I like the way Ninva said it, freedom can overlap. One person exercising absolute freedom necessarily prevents others from doing the same. Members of a society with little law realize that (unless the society is really small), so we start drawing lines in the sand, we each get this much freedom, and we each have to except that others can impinge on our freedom this much.

You don't have the freedom to kill someone in America, but you do have the freedom to publicize his life and make it a living hell, even if he hasn't broken any laws. You also have the freedom to buy up as much land as you can get and then tell people to stay off it.

I like the freedom to ability to impinge on freedom ratio in America just fine myself. So no anarchy for me, not even the theoretical "ideal" variety.

Note that, unless you personally are physically very strong, or you have a big group of supporters (in which case you might be a government of sorts, which means you aren't really living in an anarchy at all!), you will probably get to use more of your freedom under a real government than you would in an anarchy.

 

[DM Cross]

I don't consider death a physical restraint. I believe freedom only adheres to a person for as long as they are alive.

Again, you're mixing freedom with desire.

 

[Ninva]

Again, you're mixing freedom with desire.

Please, elaborate.

 

[DM Cross]

You're saying that if you want to live forever and then you die, that's a violation of your freedom?

 

[Ninva]

You're saying that if you want to live forever and then you die, that's a violation of your freedom?

Murder and death are two different things.

 

[DM Cross]

Doesn't matter. A person would have the freedom to defend themself to the point of killing the attacker. Then the attacker would have the same problem.

Freedom is not the freedom to live no matter what. It's the freedom to do whatever you want, while you are alive. If you are for some reason forced into not being alive, than there's nothing you can do about that.

A person has the freedom to smoke. When they get cancer and die, this is not a violation of their freedom. Merely what is.

 

[Jimpy]

Merely what is.

Juxtaposition. That is a long drawn out debate thread in itself.


So its pretty clear that a big aspect of anarchy is this concept of self rule, and conflict, particularly that with other individuals. I think most of us don't even find "Ideal" anarchy ideal, since it would suggest that some people get it, and others don't, and that would be a struggle of physical limitation.

Perhaps to clarify a bit, on what scale is anarchy applicable, and how do the results differ?

If you are within a group of 5 people, does that disrupt this "free for all" nature of anarchy? Or is anarchy a term for describing a lack of government?

I think in small scale (less then 50 people) you could probably have a pretty successful system of existence where you just sort of go with the pack, and if at any point you disagree or dislike where their going, or what their doing, just branch off and do your own thing.

Larger scale though things get bloody, which I think is undeniable/inevitable.


Also as Ninva and Seth have touched on, Anarchy suggests "freedom" of the self. I think desire IS connected, and murder or death certainly conflicts with a persons desires, which then of course may be altering their freedom.

Now hypothetically, I don't think people desire to not die, since in my mind, desire suggests an active stance, where as not wanting to die is much more passive. Not wanting to die is kind of rudimentary among the masses; IE - touch hot surface, brain pulls hand away.

Overall, I think anarchy is a silly concept. I wouldn't mind being a hermit though which is kind of like anarchy-light.