Anarchism.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

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.

 

I would attribute the extermination of the Indians to the european technological advantage more than anything. I wouldn't say they necessarily lost because they lacked the organization of government if you were implying that

 

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.

 

I'm happy you can at least acknowledge the possibility, I think a lot of people are kind of... pessimistic about it. The only thing I guess I disagree with is the thought that "the species isn't there yet". I'm a "if you can think it you can build it" kind of guy lol

Edited July 31, 2012 by Hollowshield

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

It's true that technological superiority played a big part in the European conquest of North America However, the reason they had such technology in the first place was because of a centuries-long arms race between the large nations of Europe. The long bow, gun powder, sailing ships...all of these technologies were the direct result of conflict between the UK, France, Spain and other European super powers. If those European powers did not exist as large (often monocratic) governments, they would not have reached such technological prowess. There would have been no need to.

 

"If you build it, they will come" is a double-edged sword. Sure, well-meaning people will take up the cause. But at the same time, there are just enough tyrants out there to seize upon this arrangement to gather people and power under their own banner.

[sirseansy 87]

Anarchy, like any political philosophy, works on paper marvelously. However, with any sizable population, it would fail immediately. People are the variable with any philosophy. That's something we often forget in any philosophical discussion be it about religion, politics, or anything.

 

All that aside, anarchy is a very loosely defined concept. A jackass thinks of it as society crumbling and then being able to do whatever the hell they want forever. However, it's WAY more complex than that. Depending on the status quo, an anarchic situation could lead to any number of things.

[Twiliscael 3,960]

People being people need people. We need a leader to keep things in order or else there is no order. We need rules to keep order or else there is no order. Something of this sort is just impossible.

[Titan Rising 2,156]

People being people need people. We need a leader to keep things in order or else there is no order. We need rules to keep order or else there is no order. Something of this sort is just impossible.

 

That's just an excuse people use to make things easier for themselves. Are you telling me you are incapable of leading an orderly life without the direction of others? That's certainly not the case for me. All you're saying is that we need people giving us orders because we're unable to manage ourselves...

[Twiliscael 3,960]

That's just an excuse people use to make things easier for themselves. Are you telling me you are incapable of leading an orderly life without the direction of others? That's certainly not the case for me. All you're saying is that we need

people giving us orders because we're unable to manage ourselves...

 

Point recieved but not necesarily agreed with. I mean, people will always look towards someone as a leader. You or I might not see the need for one but most people will turn to a leader. It's just the way people are.

[Nanniro 39]

I do not believe human behavior would allow such a system to exist for long without a clear advantage for the citizens of the anarchist area. Somewhere, someone is gong to think, "Hey, that's such a nice place over there. The people rule themselves....it's about time they learned about a REAL leader!" and up comes an army built through threats, bribes, and favors. These brutes would constantly threaten the community, and could one day overpower the anarchist movement.

 

That's not why I think it's unlikely, though. Inside the anarchist community, some people will either feel greed or over-entitlement. They'll think, "Why, these people need X, I'll get them X, and they'll respect me. I'll make them rely on me for X, so I cannot be replaced or overthrown!" or, "I am completely free here, right? So I am free to organize my friends and gather support for "defense", right?" Humans don't do well in an environment where the "fair share" relies on everyone's ability to speak up for themselves and pull their own weight. When any sort of competition is involved, we fight. We fight hard and sometimes we hurt others to make sure we get ahead. Until Humanity conquers it's competitive, selfish nature globally, we can never see a successful anarchist society.

 

Oh, I forgot about the "clear advantage" I mentioned. If the citizens of the anarchy had distinct military advantages over outside rulers or wanna-be tyrants, it would have a much higher chance of success. If people had the ability to rise up and destroy anyone trying to claim total ownership of a owner-less society, it would have a higher chance of success. If the citizens are not armed and organized, however, anyone can rise up under the pretense of "defense".

Edited August 1, 2012 by Nanniro

[Titan Rising 2,156]

Point recieved but not necesarily agreed with. I mean, people will always look towards someone as a leader. You or I might not see the need for one but most people will turn to a leader. It's just the way people are.

 

Is that really a fair thing to say then? That was my point. You're right that most people will turn to a leader - maybe for structure/maybe to make things a little easier on themselves - but that doesn't mean that they need one.

 

Very often online I see people refer to the majority of people as stupid, as if they're not intelligent or even capable of grasping certain concepts, and I think that is both a very depressing and very arrogant thing to do honestly. People are smarter than they are given credit for, if I am capable of thinking this way and managing myself I think it should be assumed that everyone is capable of the same.

[PlunderSteed 1,252]

Sure, most people might be capable of everything that you describe, but how many of them actually want to? Not enough, apparently. Otherwise society would be very different than what we see when we look around.

[cuteycindyhoney 13,307]

I wanted to be an anarchist, but try as I might, I just never could track down a copy of the rulebook!