Anarchism, as the term is popularly used, refers to a variety of philosophies. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes.

There's no implication of chaos or anomie here.

So why all the animosity?

11/3/2005 1:14:01 PM

umm...

because people need to be made to follow rules they disagree with

11/3/2005 1:16:56 PM

like what?

11/3/2005 1:19:17 PM

oh i don't know

the rule of law maybe

i guess you're cool with mob mentality and the lynching of others

11/3/2005 1:20:15 PM

like not to randomly punch people in the face

11/3/2005 1:20:17 PM

you keep associating anarchism with violence
way to fall into 19th century propaganda

do you honestly believe that people would just start beating the shit out of each other simply because the law didn't forbid it?

11/3/2005 1:24:53 PM

Quote :

"way to fall into 19th century propaganda"

Well, we are bombarded with 19th century propaganda on a daily basis.

11/3/2005 1:26:36 PM

but seriously, if the law is the only thing keeping you from attacking those around you
you scare the shit out of me

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 1:28 PM. Reason : civilized]

11/3/2005 1:27:42 PM

^^^ just because you dislike the point and think it's trite does not make it any less true

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2005 1:28:08 PM

I don't think you are understanding the point here

its NOT about anomie

okay... now go look that word up real quick

...

we'd retain a lot of the basic societal values

11/3/2005 1:29:36 PM

Class in just a bit, so I have to be brief:

Any form of anarchism inevitably runs into certain problems:

1) If it's pure anarchism, then enterprising individuals are going to start rebuilding hierarchical structures with them at the head, which inevitably leads to warlordism. Even if 99% of the population retains its societal values, it only takes one nutjob with a couple of buddies and some guns to start taking over his neighbors.

2) If it isn't pure anarchism, it isn't anarchism at all, it's minarchism or something else. This probably applies to a lot of the philosophies you seem to have in mind.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2005 1:29:45 PM

anarcha-feminism, Christian anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism

these are just names... they're not always accurate nor do they have to be

we claim we live in a democracy all the time
when its really a republic

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 1:33 PM. Reason : -]

11/3/2005 1:31:07 PM

Its because there are always going to be people seeking to exploit a situation... its like why Communism will never work (the way its intended) in practice. In almost every situation where standard laws/order are not actively being enforced there are people who lack the self-control to live a normal and peaceful life (see Katrina aftermath). Discussion on anarchism always revert to violence and wreckless behavior because its the path most likely to emerge. One renegade group becomes a problem, the opposite end of the spectrum realizes they must do somethign about it, and an opposing force is assembled in order to regulate things.

11/3/2005 1:33:04 PM

the only reason quite a few people are breathing at this point in time is because it is illegal to kill them.

11/3/2005 1:33:55 PM

so some poor people looting in the aftermath of a natural disaster disqualifies anarchism

but corruption at the highest levels of our democracy doesn't even scratch it

11/3/2005 1:34:18 PM

Quote :

"but seriously, if the law is the only thing keeping you from attacking those around you you scare the shit out of me"

Well, religion and law the only things keeping me from fucking with everyone who ever fucked with me.

11/3/2005 1:49:44 PM

I'm not against it in general, but I do think that there is a lot that organization and government have to offer, which is why I have a distaste for anarcism and libertarianism on the whole.

11/3/2005 1:55:05 PM

there's a difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism," and I think that's the general problem. People think

anarchy:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchism:

# The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
# Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
# Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

Many "anarchists" actually believe in extremely tight and brotherly bonds between men, and they definitely believe in working together. I once had a friend say "anarchism sounds great, but it sounds like it needs an awful lot of organization," and he said it as a joke - as though anarchism was supposed to be against organization. That's completely not the case.

11/3/2005 2:51:32 PM

I think it could work if you look at it as a long-term solution.

Basically there would be chaos and disorder for a while, maybe a decade or two. During that time all the idiots and morons would loot, riot, kill each other, and make a mess of society in general. The smarter folk with a desire to survive and thrive would figure out ways to succeed in the society. Eventually the nutjobs would die off or figure out that their ways aren't going to work because the smart people will have systems in place to discourage such behavior.


I think what would happen is that you would see people forming governments but on a much smaller scale. Communities would choose leaders and set their own rules and laws. People desire routine, normalcy, and order in their lives. A society built around no set of rules wouldn't last long because people would form their own smaller societies with laws.

11/3/2005 3:07:55 PM

Quote :

"The smarter folk with a desire to survive and thrive would figure out ways to succeed in the society"

The simplest and smartest way for them to do this would be to consolidate power.

11/3/2005 3:12:11 PM

^ exactly my point...

Once the violent ruffians figure out that getting their way by force doesn't always work, order will be restored in the form of rules again. We won't go long without some form of order.


I mean, at one point was society not governmentless? The cavemen didn't hold elections. At some point people saw a need for elected officials to organize their society or it wouldn't be the way it is today.

11/3/2005 3:40:05 PM

Quote :

"do you honestly believe that people would just start beating the shit out of each other simply because the law didn't forbid it?"

haha, I know i would...

11/3/2005 3:45:11 PM

see New Orleans, post Katrina

11/3/2005 4:46:43 PM

Quote :

"There's no implication of chaos or anomie here."

no, of course not. that's not the point of anarchism. the problem is that it would degenerate into that.

and hell yeah, not only would i kick the shit out of a few people, i would probably shoot a few.

11/3/2005 5:33:34 PM

Quote :

"I mean, at one point was society not governmentless? The cavemen didn't hold elections. At some point people saw a need for elected officials to organize their society or it wouldn't be the way it is today."

we didn't exactly go from caveman to democracy...but i see your point

11/3/2005 5:39:50 PM

Of course we didn't. There was an implied progression to democracy in my post.

11/3/2005 5:52:40 PM

Gorillas and chimpanzees have hierarchical social structures. Wolves and lions and elephants have them. Hell, ants have them. And I guaran-damn-tee you that humans have had them as long as we've been alive.

Does that mean we had government? No. But anarchism isn't just about getting rid of government. It's about getting rid of -- you guessed it -- hierarchical social structures.

As DG says, it's not against organization, but I've yet to run into a group of people who consistently and without fail agree on their goals and their means of acheiving those goals. The second someone dissents, somebody's will has to be enforced -- either the majority, by making the one guy go along, or the minority, by vetoing everyone else's will.

As soon as you get rid of the structures in power you create a power vacuum. Someone will take advantage of it. Someone always does. Someone always has.

11/3/2005 6:03:20 PM

The Universe is based on order.

Anarchy is impossible.

11/3/2005 6:37:50 PM

that social hierarchy isn't without utility, either.

it's kinda like the free market of status and position. people settle into the places they are best suited. obviously it isn't a perfect system, just like the economic free market, but it beats the alternative.

and for that reason, true anarchy is impossible in the long term.

just like in Lord Of the Flies, there will always be a Piggy and there will always be a Jack (or whatever the leader's name was). the best case is to embrace that fact and strive to put the system to its highest and greatest uses, partly to minimalize that sort of chaos.

Sucks to your ass-mar, Piggy.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 7:05 PM. Reason : asdsadfasdfasd]

11/3/2005 6:58:52 PM

what's wrong with socialism?

11/3/2005 7:02:06 PM

it's not the efficient way of doing things, it historically hasn't been nearly as successful as capitalism, and it doesn't matter, because it isn't anarchy, anyway.

11/3/2005 7:06:28 PM

Quote :

"Many "anarchists" actually believe in extremely tight and brotherly bonds between men, and they definitely believe in working together."

i'm a classic example of the type of person who would just love to throw a monkey wrench into your utopian system.

and i'm pretty fucking sane.

just wait until the salisburyboys, unibombers, and sociopaths get a crack at it

and no. no political system, no matter how long it has been in existence, "retraining" the human nature, will get rid of paranoids, sociopaths, or sadists

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 7:42 PM. Reason : s]

11/3/2005 7:40:59 PM

Snewf your definition of anarchism is so broad it couldinclude a capitalist country like the United States. Citizens have a say in decisions through the democratic process and i can think of very few interactions between individuals that are not voluntary.

You should narrow your definiton. Specifically, almost all anarchist philosophies i have ever encountered, such as Lysander Spooner or Marx, are distinguished by either the end (or the eventual end) of government.

Even statists such as Rawls would prefer a world of exclusivley voluntary interaction, but they disagree that it is attainable. You're missing the real point of the anarchism debate.

Nota verygood question if youaskme.

11/3/2005 7:49:11 PM

so what I'm getting here is that the corruption and absurdity of our current government is the only thing holding us back from daily multiple murders

could you think about what you might like about it for a minute?

I'm not an anarchist and I'm not encouraging you to become one
but in a democracy there needs to be a respectful discourse between all schools of thought... consider something and be pragmatic

11/3/2005 7:50:57 PM

Quote :

"so what I'm getting here is that the corruption and absurdity of our current government is the only thing holding us back from daily multiple murders"

helllooooo hyperbole.

you're an idiot. its the justice system that is holding people back. you fucking moron. take your rhetoric elsewhere. this is a pretty thing for you to say and then follow up with promotion of "respectful discourse"

you goddamned poser

11/3/2005 7:53:49 PM

The corruption and absurdity (such as they are...you could do a lot worse and not so terribly much better) aren't what keep us in check. It's the other things.

11/3/2005 7:56:24 PM

11/3/2005 7:57:19 PM

Quote :

"The Universe is based on order. Anarchy is impossible."

again, you're missing the point. it's not ANARCHY, it's ANARCHISM. please see my definitions above. there is TONS of order in an anarchist system.

my idea of anarchism is that it made sense when it was implemented, ten thousand years ago when people had no choice but to work together in an (at least sort of) egalitarian way. To think that we can go straight from our society to an anarchistic one is just silly. I think we could definitely move in that direction, starting with deconsolidation of power, but it would be a difficult and probably dangerous transition

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 9:04 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 9:04 PM. Reason : c]

11/3/2005 8:57:37 PM

simply put, there are chiefs and there are indians

anarchism makes everyone a chief


that never, ever works. it's just not possible with humans being... y'know... human.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 9:16 PM. Reason : :]

11/3/2005 9:15:56 PM

in anarchism chiefs would still emerge, they just wouldn't have any authority or official rank. People would do what they say based on the merit of their ideas, not because they hold power over them.

11/3/2005 9:29:18 PM

Arguing anarchy as a possible choice of government is about as credible as arguing ID in biology.

11/3/2005 9:53:13 PM

^^my point is that not only would chiefs emerge, the formal authority would, too.

11/3/2005 10:19:30 PM

I agree with that. I think cultures can exist where the formal authority doesn't form. But if our culture were to be somehow "converted" to anarchism that would definitly occur.



[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2005 10:42:40 PM

Here is the problem with anarchism (which is basically just liberitarianism):

How do you enforce it?

11/3/2005 10:44:53 PM

Its a concept that fails the minute someone cheats.

11/3/2005 10:52:52 PM

what do you mean? just because you don't have an artificial hierarchical structure creating and enforcing laws doesn't mean you can't enforce social norms. People who act in a socially unacceptable behavior would be ostracized from whatever community they were trying to be a part of. If you try to use violence to force people to do what you want, then you'll be met with violence.

11/3/2005 10:55:50 PM

Apply your idea to entire communities from different regions.

They will have different social "norms."

How will they come to an understanding? By establishing protocol.

What if one community breaks that protocol though?

What if the offending community is also much larger?

Every social disturbance you counter, I will come up with a new one.

A the end of this thread you will look back and realize that you've essentially created laws and a crude means of enforcement and by extension, governance.

It is inescapable.

11/3/2005 11:04:08 PM

Me not going around punching random people in the face because I know I'll be shunned from the community I'm living with is very different from a law existing and a police force enforcing that law. Not all regularized social behavior results in a law being made.

and why would it matter that different communities have different social norms? People in Charlotte could steal and each each other's babies, but it wouldn't bother me none unless they came up to raleigh.

11/3/2005 11:11:57 PM

Quote :

"Unless they came up to Raleigh"

Yes. A community overtaking another has never happened before.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 11:14 PM. Reason : g]

11/3/2005 11:14:19 PM

If there were no government forcing people to do so, it's unlikely that they would be able to bring up enough people for it to matter. Of course, I don't think that large cities like Raleigh and Charlotte would be able to exist anyways. You would probably get more spread out clusters of communities.

11/3/2005 11:17:56 PM