I_wesley125 393 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 What are you thoughts on it? Is "true anarchism" even possible? Obviously if there is no law/government, someone will gain a monopoly on weapons/resources/men and they will become the law/government. If you are an anarchist, how do you justify that? Obviously there are some other issues with the very concept, and I do not believe true anarchism is possible. You are just swapping one monopoly with another. Are there any anarchists able to counter my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finesthour 7,286 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 There will always be someone people look up to. We as people need to have someone to follow to live our day to day lives (Well, the normal populous, really). Look at religion. God is the ruler of many of our lives. Rules will also exist as well. No one is ever truly free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Rising 2,156 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 (edited) The idea behind it is that in a true anarcho-capitalist society no one will be able to create such monopolies because the people in the society will not have to buy products from them. They might have resources, but the people may not buy from them because of what they want to do with the money. Alternatively, if such a thing did happen somewhere, other people can voluntarily come together and create a force to oppose them. Yes I believe true anarchism is possible Edited July 31, 2012 by Hollowshield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 I've never really taken the idea of Anarchism all that seriously, but like the OP, I'm curious about what others think (especially its proponents). To me, the biggest question has to do with infrastructure: without structure as we know it, how would there be things like effective fire departments, institutes of higher learning, space programs, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire_Fly 499 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 (edited) I think anarchy dies with the birth of the new law/official power. It's one thing to rise up against the former law, but once there's no law left to oppose, new law is needed to maintain order. The succeeding power then has to make the inevitable choice: Will they rebuild the law from the ground up and face the problems and challenges entailed in establishing an all new government, or will they take the easy way out and become the force they rose up against? In this way "temporary" anarchy can be a merciful one-shot, or a harsh cycle of history repeating itself. Edited July 31, 2012 by Fire_Fly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Rising 2,156 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 (edited) I've never really taken the idea of Anarchism all that seriously, but like the OP, I'm curious about what others think (especially its proponents). To me, the biggest question has to do with infrastructure: without structure as we know it, how would there be things like effective fire departments, institutes of higher learning, space programs, etc.? Well theres probably even better explanations, but... People can voluntarily donate for fire departments People can still pay to be taught by institutes of higher learning, the only difference is it would probably cost less Space programs can be funded voluntarily or by bigger corporations Edited July 31, 2012 by Hollowshield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nouth 495 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 I do not believe we, as a race, are ready to live well in anarchism. For now, considering how selfishly some people act given opportunity to do so, I think that some kind of firm government can give us more freedom than anarchism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazuki Fuse 534 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 I don't really feel true anarchism can ever exist, unless we go back to living like cavemen. And in some ways, they even had a societal structure that conflicts with the basic concepts of anarchy. Semi-relevant quote: "In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." Tyler Durden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegoodhen 698 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 To quote one local video game magasine: "Every group has it's rules. Try to come to a radical vegans meeting with hamburger and you'll see what I'm talking about." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unexard 50 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Anarchy is impossible. Why? Because, whitout the "need" for people to "stand above others", nothing make sense anymore. Every second of our lives is a competition against others. Put two people in a room, and one of them is gonna try to subdue the other in a way or another. We need "better than us" people to take decisions. We need leaders. We need someone we can point our fingers at when the question "who is responsible here?" comes into play. Humanity, as a whole, needs people to guide it. Anarchy is impossible or, more truly, anarchy is chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Well theres probably even better explanations, but... People can voluntarily donate for fire departments People can still pay to be taught by institutes of higher learning, the only difference is it would probably cost less Space programs can be funded voluntarily or by bigger corporations Are you saying that taxes should ideally be replaced by voluntary donations? If that's the case, then everybody would decide for themselves who gets their donations, and how much. I suppose that's fair; many charity organizations operate like this. But in the case of critical infrastructure, how is an individual to know that their donations are properly balanced? What's to stop a corrupt person from skimming off the top. Wouldn't that require some sort of system or method to oversee and punish that kind of corruption? And where does funding for such a system come from? More donations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilshy 5,089 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 No form of government, or lack thereof, will ever work perfectly, because humans are not perfect. It's as simple as that. As for anarchy, I think it's less likely to work than what we have now, since it relies on the vast majority of people being willing to take matters into their own hands, but at the same time, working together to do what a single person couldn't accomplish, and there just aren't enough people like that. There will always be people who seek power, and there will always be people who seek a powerful person to follow. There will always be people unhappy to do everything for themselves, and instead want to follow someone, to do what they say and have their needs taken care of in return. The people would break up into groups, each one with its own form of government, be it some sort of small democracy, or a dictatorship lead by a warlord, or some other thing. I think those two would be the most likely, though, and there would certainly be more of them than other groups. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Rising 2,156 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Are you saying that taxes should ideally be replaced by voluntary donations? If that's the case, then everybody would decide for themselves who gets their donations, and how much. I suppose that's fair; many charity organizations operate like this. But in the case of critical infrastructure, how is an individual to know that their donations are properly balanced? What's to stop a corrupt person from skimming off the top. Wouldn't that require some sort of system or method to oversee and punish that kind of corruption? And where does funding for such a system come from? More donations? Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. You're asking whats preventing the people who are receiving the donations from taking part of it? Well essentially nothing I suppose, but if people aren't satisfied with what is being done with their donations they will stop donating. That is ultimately the punishment as well, along with the person (possibly) not being able to be trusted by the rest of society, making it harder to find work - maybe even making it harder for them to buy things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. You're asking whats preventing the people who are receiving the donations from taking part of it? Well essentially nothing I suppose, but if people aren't satisfied with what is being done with their donations they will stop donating. That is ultimately the punishment as well, along with the person (possibly) not being able to be trusted by the rest of society, making it harder to find work - maybe even making it harder for them to buy things. But if people stop donating (as a form of protest against the corrupt accountant), then...no money is going into the fire department (or whatever), which could very quickly lead to innocent people getting screwed. Or burned alive, as the case may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samurshy 708 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 In an anarchy situation it brings forth the true meaning of "survival of the fittest" and "adapt or die". You will have to have weapons, and looting and killing would be a normal part of life. Look at every single piece of post apocalyptic fiction out there, the main character is always the badass because he has all of the resources and skills. If you ever watched the Colony on discovery, it would probably be a lot like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Rising 2,156 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 (edited) But if people stop donating (as a form of protest against the corrupt accountant), then...no money is going into the fire department (or whatever), which could very quickly lead to innocent people getting screwed. Or burned alive, as the case may be. This might sound harsh. If the society isn't putting in enough funds for a quality societal fire department then they can't expect quality societal fire department services. Yes it is entirely possible that someone without even as much as a plug or stove in their house could be the victim of arson, however, that is part of the price of freedom - loss of security. Ideally in this type of system people should be looking out for each other on an individual basis, being proactive to prevent break-ins in their neighborhoods, watching each others backs, etc. And they should be responsible and do everything they can to prevent fires as well. If a society stops donating because of a corrupt accountant, then another person in the society should step forward, take up the responsibility, and create a new fund for the society that people will want to donate to. If people stop donating because they don't want a quality fire department or even because they just can't afford it then well... that's that. If an innocent person loses his home to a fire then he loses his home, and he can only hope that maybe he has some kind of back up plan in case that happens. Like I said though, that is part of the price of freedom. In an anarchy situation it brings forth the true meaning of "survival of the fittest" and "adapt or die". You will have to have weapons, and looting and killing would be a normal part of life. Look at every single piece of post apocalyptic fiction out there, the main character is always the badass because he has all of the resources and skills. If you ever watched the Colony on discovery, it would probably be a lot like that. You're right to some extent. People will have to learn how to defend themselves and their neighborhoods, and people will group together to help make sure they're safe. However, I don't think it's right to assume that it would be "survival of the fittest" as if everyone is on their own and everyone's out to kill each other. Edited July 31, 2012 by Hollowshield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Yep, I can see that being somewhat sustainable. Come to think of it, there are plenty of societies that do function under that kind of personal responsibility, and without the safety nets that come with dedicated (tax-sustained) infrastructure. Of course, every example I can think of are in the poorest parts of Somalia, Afghanistan, and other extremely miserable places to live. Do you have examples where such a system works in healthy, peaceful societies? It seems to me that when things are the way that you describe, it's because a society can't manage to build or sustain something more prosperous. Maybe you have a different idea of it means to be prosperous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Rising 2,156 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Yep, I can see that being somewhat sustainable. Come to think of it, there are plenty of societies that do function under that kind of personal responsibility, and without the safety nets that come with dedicated (tax-sustained) infrastructure. Of course, every example I can think of are in the poorest parts of Somalia, Afghanistan, and other extremely miserable places to live. Do you have examples where such a system works in healthy, peaceful societies? It seems to me that when things are the way that you describe, it's because a society can't manage to build or sustain something more prosperous. Maybe you have a different idea of it means to be prosperous. I probably do have a very different meaning to prosperous than most people. I think most people would define it as something along the lines of 'net comfort', but personally I would define it as something more like 'net opportunity' where opportunity is the capacity to make friends and accomplish goals. For these things I believe an anarcho-capitalist society would be preferable to any form of government. But like you said, society as a whole tends to have a different meaning for the word prosperous, and because we seek comfort over responsibility I believe we have a tendency to migrate to a socialist way of thinking over time. This is especially the case when we are surrounded by entertainment and things to make us more comfortable Unfortunately though, I do not have any evidence where such a system has ever existed, let alone worked. But I think it's also important to note I don't think this system is necessarily the best system to produce the max amount of comfort for people - in all honesty I think it would actually force people to put more effort into every part of their lives - but I don't believe that is a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Fair enough. Overall it strikes me as being on par with communism and similar societal models in one critical area: its feasibility is based on the belief that a large group of people can act more kindly, responsibly and pro-actively than has ever been demonstrated on such a scale. I like the idea of it, as well as its potential for peace and prosperity, but I don't think the species is there yet. I don't think it will be for a very long time, if ever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skullbuster 1,906 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 anarchism cant work because civilized people need rules and laws to keep every thing in check if you take away those rules and laws, then everything falls into absolute chaos, the whole idea that people would work together in a lawless society and support his fellow man is completely ridiculas, and even then, some body is going to rise up and take charge of things,for better or for worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random User 249 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 As an Anarcho-Socialist I really feel the need to answer any questions regarding how such a system would work. Social Anarchism punctuates community. Smaller communities have common interests, do they not? This way, smaller areas that prefer one way of thinking can feel free to do as they please there, whilst other communities with different points of view can practice what they please. This way, we can all be as free as humanly possible, because freedom is a very hard thing to define when applied to a large group such as an entire country. As for defence and economy, mutual aid and benefit comes into play. If we want to defend our freedoms against some sort of encroaching force, communities come together to help defend ourselves. Communities will trade with one another to sustain an economy. We must cooperate as human beings to survive. This is what I believe to be the most beneficial system in regards to human happiness. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 Historical examples of this are readily available by studying the Native American tribes. They functioned a lot like the way you describe. It worked just fine for them. ...until a large force, organized under a crown showed up in big tax-funded armies and (over the course of a couple centuries) largely wiped them out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol' Sarge 885 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 As an Anarcho-Socialist I really feel the need to answer any questions regarding how such a system would work. Social Anarchism punctuates community. Smaller communities have common interests, do they not? This way, smaller areas that prefer one way of thinking can feel free to do as they please there, whilst other communities with different points of view can practice what they please. This way, we can all be as free as humanly possible, because freedom is a very hard thing to define when applied to a large group such as an entire country. As for defence and economy, mutual aid and benefit comes into play. If we want to defend our freedoms against some sort of encroaching force, communities come together to help defend ourselves. Communities will trade with one another to sustain an economy. We must cooperate as human beings to survive. This is what I believe to be the most beneficial system in regards to human happiness. You do realize that you described Ancient Greece, right? While I understand your point, human beings will always be governed by some type of entity either through mutual agreement or through force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random User 249 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 You do realize that you described Ancient Greece, right? While I understand your point, human beings will always be governed by some type of entity either through mutual agreement or through force. It's more or less ancient Greece only without clear leaders governing the city states. Kind of like the settlements of Fallout 3. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlunderSteed 1,251 July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 It should be telling, that the only real instances of such a system "working" are either in ancient times or in post-apocalyptic hell holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Join the herd!Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now