Ok, I've been totally obsessed with anarchism over the past few days, especially anarcho-communism and eco-anarchism, and I reckon the world should turn anarchist, as I think its a great idea - no government would mean no wars which would mean peace, and everything would turn out fine.
No, I never said I did, I just believe in the philosiphical theory of anarchism, like anarcho-capitilsm is already happening in 1 country, but think about it, the only reason people break the rules is because they CAN, if their is no rules, theres none to break, so noone would do it without a reasonable reason
Gender: Unspecified Location: Lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain
Err... Do you seriously believe starving people steal food because they want to break the rules? A jealous husband kills his wife's lover because he wants to break the rules? ...no.
Murder, rape, thievery, will all still happen, whether there is a government to impose certain laws or not.
I personally would love an anarchist nation, but in the same way I'd love it if I were able to grow money off trees. People are too greedy, angry, horny, etc. for there to be no rules.
__________________ "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity." — Thor Heyerdahl
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
an·ar·chy n. pl. an·ar·chies
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.
pol·i·tics n.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
I took the most relevant definitions of politics here, not all of them since the rest are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. This seems to be the definition that is misunderstood in the first post on this thread. Anarchy exists between nations at the present time. This is why there is war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all other multinational conflicts at the present time. There is not a cohesive principle existing between a number of nations. What you are talking about is removing the large scale cohesive principles in favor of individual principles. The probable result would be increasing smaller scale conflict to reduce large scale conflict. Odds are that true anarchy would result in the same, if not a larger, number of casualties. There would be less peace given such a situation. We have historical evidence of the amount of conflict that occurs with larger scale anarchy, or in other words smaller, more numerous, governments. Violence increases.
Also, true anarchy cannot exist. As you approach true anarchy the probability of not having common views among small groups decreases. There will always be some that agree with each other, and whatever they do that defines their views are the methods they are using to manage their unofficial government. Also, is an individual truly an anarchist if he believes in promoting anarchy and anyone agrees with him? The fact that he has a cohesive principle, anarchy in this case, even conflicts with his desire to be an anarchist.
Did you also ever imagine the positive effects of anrachism? As if there isnt massive gangfights going on at the moment, as if people dont fight over properties at the moment, as if people dont rape each otehr at the moment, they wouldnt fight because there wouldnt be a need to, just like in communism, everything would be shared. No governments perfect, so why not try it without a government? Sambia is an anarcho-capitalist country and its doing Great! So yes, there would be negative points to an anarchist society, but there is in Capitalism, communsim, Socialism, Leninism, marxism, Maoism, any type of government you can think of! There wouldnt be huge wars, or gang fights, it'd be every man for himself, especially in situations like eco anarchy, as there would be so small settlements no-one would need to fight to settle disputes.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
an·ar·chism
NOUN:
1) The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2) Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3) Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
My arguments still fit fairly well with your first post.
Anarchism could never occur as long as at least one person believed someone else should or should not do something. Anarchism wouldn't believe in stopping that person. If it did it would destroy itself by becoming a type of government.
The theory of anarchism is a pipe dream. Eis is right. I could also say I wish all women were beautiful and wanted to have sex with only one man, me, and if I was unavailable with each other. That is more probable than a society that truly ran based on anarchism.
But it sais 'as used by some anarchists' for the terrorism bit. Its not a pipe-drime seeming as though Sambia is already an anarcho-capitalist country, sure, one person could believe someone shouldn't do something, but what is he going to do about it?
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I cannot find reference to Sambia that supports your claim that it is an anarcho-capitalist country. I found reference to others, but they all fell due to a stronger non-anarcho capitalist society. If it were a decent manner of life it would be able to protect itself, since it cannot, it must not provide enough structure to withstand incursion.
it was somali sorry, .Iceland was Anarcho-capitalist in many aspects. as norway was, but the idea of Anarchism is great. everyone would still carry on making things and developing and letting rooms and hotels, I mean sure, they wont get payed, but whats to loose from it? Charities will still be run for the ill, not poor as there would be no poor, life without a government would mean we are not controlled, we are free.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 10th, 2006 10:00 AM
