Anarchist society

[α CMa]

anarchism

English

 

Etymology

From Ancient Greek 'an' (without), 'archos' (leader - governance - rulership)

 

 

Noun

anarchism

 

Any theory or doctrine that proposes the absence of social hierarchy in all forms

Any political movement that specifically claims the label of "anarchist"

Often used to mean libertarian socialism

See also: anarchy

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchism

[infamous]

you should check anarchism also.

Absolutely...........An anarchist is one who believes in anarchism. And an anarchist is' date=' according to Websters; [u']a promoter of anarchy.[/u] Sooooooo, what's your point??

[TheBigDog]

you should check anarchism also.

You should check reality.

 

Good intentions will not get you far against those who would abuse the lack of enforcable rules to your detriment. That is why we have laws, and live with the compromise that those laws entail. Here is your homework assignment. Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine (1776). I can't explain reality to you any better than he.

 

*Edited - didn't have purpose to the topic*

 

Bill

[infamous]

You should check reality.

 

 

DIT-TO BigDog, DIT-TO.........................Infy

[α CMa]

You should check reality.

 

Good intentions will not get you far against those who would abuse the lack of enforcable rules to your detriment. That is why we have laws, and live with the compromise that those laws entail. Here is your homework assignment. Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine (1776). I can't explain reality to you any better than he.

 

Alternately try pulling your head far enough out of your *** so that you can see and hear the people around you. You are of course free to live with your head fully engaged, but I personally discourage going past the "crowning" position.

 

Bill

:) :cup:

i understand what you are tring to say. but are you tring to understand what i am saying?

i have experienced that people dont want to listen or be reasonable if they have preconcieved notions about somthing that they dont fully understand. that is the case with anarchism. people dont understand it and dont make the effort to . please read Nineteen Eighty-Four a political novel by George Orwell. it too has all the common sense that we all require so much. people around the world are saying that the novel is coming to life now. the fictional world in it is becoming a reality.

which reality do you live in?

i live in the reality that is called globalisation in which only those are free who give up their civil liberties, people pay countless taxes so that their governments can keep secrets from peope who put it in power to take them to stupid wars.God! the land of the free doesnt look free any more.why are we forced to succumb to corporate rule? why dont we understand what the big coeporations are doing and how it affects our lives as well as lives of other thousands and millions of people who suffer so that we can live in luxury?

[infamous]

why are we forced to succumb to corporate rule? why dont we understand what the big coeporations are doing and how it affects our lives as well as lives of other thousands and millions of people who suffer so that we can live in luxury?

But ofcourse' date=' [b']Why, why, why[/b] can't we all just return to the stone age caves and hunt wild life again. BTW, that would also include other homosapiens. I am being sarcastic ofcourse....................................Infy

[Boerseun]

Remember the anarchist come together to live in a community where they decide their rules and not conform to some bully's rules.

i dont want wall mart in my area and the local shop keepers are with me. do i have to conform to having a wall mart?

No - you can evict Wall Mart any time you like. But keep in mind' date=' if there is one single "anarchist" in your specific area that [i']did[/i] want Wall Mart there, you're ignoring his wishes and laying the tyranny of the masses down on his ***. In other words, he didn't agree to your removal of Wall Mart, but seeing as you guys were in the majority, Wall Mart had to go. You've just invented government by concensus. By "government" I mean the laying down of the rules (evicting Wall Mart). You've used your concensus as the "vehicle" for achieving that decision - and just came up with a legislative body all on your own. Also, you've done what most other democratic governments do, ruled by popular vote and trampled on the minority.

 

So how exactly does your view of "anarchy" differ from the current "rule-by-government" scenario? Except for the fact that you're not currently in charge?

[IDMclean]

One must realize that Goverment is nothing but a layer of convient abstraction.

 

Reductionism is reducing a complex layer of abstraction down to the smallest component parts. Anarchism is a reductionist goverment style. That is take out the middle man, and restore the balance through statistical, individualistic means.

 

I maintain a greater stance in regards to the so called "land of the free", and that is that there is no such place, never has been. When the united states came to be, it was only more free relative to other countries. Not complete. The forefathers reconized this themselves, hence the change conditions of the constitution. America was founded on a farther from rule by figurehead, towards more rule by equal representation.

 

Anarchy is what founded this country. Anarchy is playing by the rules of common sense, rather than the rules of tradition. Gorilla warfare, which won this country's independence, was a result of anarchy on the battle field. Rather than doing something because that is the way it is done, the people involved did what was more practicial than lining up to die.

 

Progress is a beat that continues unabaited. The question here is not "will these people agree with me or not?" that is an irrational question. The answer of course will be "no, because these individuals are seperate people, with seperate ideals from myself.", The better question is "why?", the answers and questions that can come from that are nearly unlimited. "Why is it that we opperate our goverment the way we do?", there are many answers and we can try many of them with a little caution and allot of courage.

 

There are two aspects of a goverment. Socialogical power distribution, and Economic power distribution. Anarchy is a Socialogical power distribution model. As long as resources are seen as limited, Economics shall exist.

 

"The good of the many, out weight the good of the few."

 

In anarchy, you must look out for the best interests of your fellow citizen, as well as yourself. That is where this differs majorly from Direct Democracy. DD gives the power to the people, but does not say where the responsibilities lie. Hence the circuses and bread senario. Anarchy says that you and your society are your concearn, are your responsibility. You must take into account what is best, not just for you or your family, but what is best for the society as a whole.

 

Trust. I trust you all to watch my back, to make sure that I am heard out justly, and wisely. I trust you all to make sure to let me know when I am in the wrong. I trust you all to be my checks and balances.

 

As I have itterated before. Anarchy is about freedom, simplicity, and moral living. My powers, and freedoms end where your's pick up. Same for my responsibilities.

[TheBigDog]

Anarchist society as so optimistically described here works perfectly up until the point that the population exceeds one person. At that point the clash of free will begins. No matter how you wish it to be otherwise, anarchy by any definition is doomed to failure. And presisting with belief in it shows a lack of comprehension of the realities of societal mechanics.

 

Good luck with it!

 

Bill

[GAHD]

I'm with TBD on it. I mean seriously, a sociaty where you rely on "good nature"?

 

I'm a student of the human animal, and I think everybody's wicked in their own way. :confused:

[IDMclean]

It's not even worth discussion to those who do not even concider it a possiblity.

 

Anarchist society as so optimistically described here works perfectly up until the point that the population exceeds one person. At that point the clash of free will begins. No matter how you wish it to be otherwise, anarchy by any definition is doomed to failure. And presisting with belief in it shows a lack of comprehension of the realities of societal mechanics.

 

This is conjecture. I ask that you provide proofs. Like for instance, how is it that the definition is doom? Clash of freewills? Bullshit. This happens here and now. How would Anarchy and Republic differ? I don't see them as differing in this respect.

 

It has been said a number of times here that it would be chaos? How so? Is it now? What would differ? If the law says that you must allow another to kill you, if they so desire, your not going to listen to that law if it comes to it, I expect.

 

Anarchy is like any other goverment. It is a structure in place to ensure quality of life. In all reality, nothing really truely prevents you from purchasing a gun and going on a rampage, other than moral qualms and obvious reprecussions, like being hunted down like a dog. What prevents, in this system, the chaos that is predicted in Anarchy?

 

I challenge you to show a non-trivial, emperical example of why the current system "works" an anarchy wouldn't. You pay your taxes, right?

[Boerseun]

KAC, you're not paying attention.

 

Read my post #24 again. Whereas the concept of 'anarchy' is all good and well, the moment there is more than one person sharing the same country (like TBD said), the system fails, and government reinvents itself. Anarchy is per definition the absence of government, but the emergence of some form of government seems to be inevitable when there are more than one person in the equation.

 

Logically explain to us how you expect an 'anarchist' system to work without government inventing itself all over again.

[pgrmdave]

remember the anarchist come together to live in a community where they decide their rules and not conform to some bully's rules.

 

This sounds more like a democracy...it sounds like this community would eventually need to focus on surviving, but they would still need to deal with 'bullies' from outside the community. So, most of them would grow food, build houses and furniture, make clothing and what not, while a few of them would deal with the outside world, to keep the community safe from bullies. Now, these people who are dealing with the outside world are necessary, but they aren't able to grow food for themselves, or provide any other type of product to barter with. So, the community, recognizing that these people are necessary to help them, would provide them with a portion of what they grow or build. These people, in dealing with the outside world, would have to make some difficult decisions on behalf of the community, even some unpopular decisions. They would have to have some degree of power over the people, otherwise the entire community would have to be involved in too many decisions and nothing would get done. Give this community fifty years and you have a functioning goverment.

[IDMclean]

Logically explain to us how you expect an 'anarchist' system to work without government inventing itself all over again.

 

Never said it won't involve re-inventing the idea of goverment, like many innovations it would require a new set of definitions to replace less accurate, or out right incorrect constants. Unless goverment is untouchable by scientific method. I live in a world of matterial things, and attempt to avoid dogmas myself. When something proves itself repeatedly to not work, I tend to look for better methods, and explinations. Better systems of description.

 

Now Pgrmdave, what you talk about has to do with material good distribution, which is an economic concearn, not a social power allocation concearn, see my previous posts. One of them has to do with the discussion of the indepence of areas of goverment. We, in america, live in a Republic-Capitalistic society.

 

As for everyone not having the time for this or that? Not true. as I have already put forward, the societial model that I enspouce requires diversification, and interest into many facets of society. Admittedly it would be difficult for those who wish to specialize down one obscure form of Bridge engineering.

 

Ideally, in my opinion the model would be an Anarchy-Socialistic society. Each person would contribute to as many areas as possible, learning how to do a great many things, rather just a few. The goal would be to eliminate as many menial tasks as possible. Whatever can be automated should be, as quickly as possible. Efficiency, production, and effective resource distribution are the high-lights of the model I want to see.

 

Like with the law, it is the citizen's duty to understand the system. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Me and you, we maybe good at a few fields, and more than likely those are the fields we would work in the most, but are not our only "educations", like college the citizenry would be required to diversify.

 

Then again I may not be talking about a simple change of goverment... I rarely talk about simple swap outs, or patches. I like to talk in whole paradigm shifts.

 

So you know, your right. History attests to it. The world is very reluctant to change, and will outright resist to the moment where it's finally ready.

 

Anarchy is simply a method of power, and responsibility distribution. Which de-emphasizes governence by authority, and figurehead.

 

Goverment is simply the name of the system that a society develops to help individuals run smoothly, alone and together.

 

You can no more "remove" goverment from a society, than you can "remove" personality from a person, and still have a person. If you remove physics, particles do not simply cease to be. all of it is simply a system, a set of symbols, to guide our understanding and discission making processes.

 

So as Buffy pointed out, perhaps what I am talking about is not so much "anarchy" in the archaic, but rather a new term, or definition, what could be coined as "neo-anarchy". With old understanding comes old (and often mistaken) assumeptions.

 

Democracy is not Anarchy and likewise. Anarchy is the recognition of the individual as the defining portion of the society. Democracy is the recognition of the group as the defining portion of the society.Anarchy is to Democracy, as Republic is to Monarchy.