Anarchy vs. an Ordered Government

[tomsnowman123]

I see... Hmm... Well the eco-villages that you talk of would just be run by the people then, because you don't want to talk with the corrupted governments. I see. So ANY exercising of control upon ANY aspects of a country is bad. Then a self-sufficient village that is communal woud have no need for currecy?

Ideally, yes. The ends/accomplishment would justify work and production of neccesary materials.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Self-sufficient villiage? I know you advocate a simpler lifestyle, but I can't see a single villiage being self-sufficient at any higher than medieval standards of living.

Trade would perhaps be neccesary among ecovillages. Then again, with a simpler lifestyle and greater connection with nature, there wouldn't be nerely as high a demand for goods.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

When it is accepted as the best way of life, people will follow it. Not everybody ever will, but there are certain things in socety right now that are accepted as ways of life, the same could be done with a certain type of anarchy. Granted, a true anarchy hasn't really been implemented.

The "not everybod who ever will" would cause problems. There will always be people who are greedy and power hungry and the natural result of this part of human nature is that organizations of people form. This is why nations, states, tribes, bands, poleis, etc formed in the first place.

The way you say that anarchy is great but "true anarchy hasn't really been implemented" is just like how others say communism is great but "true communism hasn't really been implemented." The reason is that both true anarchy and true communism are impossible and are completely contrary to human nature.

 

[Tycoon101]

I would love a government with no control (i.e. no government) but in practice it won't happen. My views, I think, are as close as we will get. The world has to recognize greed and other human flaws to work, and I think minimal, but existant, government will do just that.

So a self-suffiecient, anarchist society would requre total equality amongst all. Everyone would be subject to criticisms from one another in order to discover the flaws with our ideas.

Would the group control itself though? Would there be a vote amongst the members for whom is guilty of a crime? Or would there be no crime? Would there be ANY ability to stop someone from slaughtering an entire village?

 

[tomsnowman123]

The "not everybod who ever will" would cause problems. There will always be people who are greedy and power hungry and the natural result of this part of human nature is that organizations of people form. This is why nations, states, tribes, bands, poleis, etc formed in the first place.

The way you say that anarchy is great but "true anarchy hasn't really been implemented" is just like how others say communism is great but "true communism hasn't really been implemented." The reason is that both true anarchy and true communism are impossible and are completely contrary to human nature.

Tribes are ok as part of a hunter-gatherer complex.

Maybe we should take the always positive but inherently flawed view of "nothing's impossible."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I wish to know, what will sustain this "anarchy?" What is to stop those who are power hungry from creating some kind of governing body? Or perhaps, they are all equal, and for some reason desire to be equal, and won't take advantage of each other? Well that, my friend, is Communism. Congraduations, I told you anarchists are Communists!

 

[tomsnowman123]

Would the group control itself though? Would there be a vote amongst the members for whom is guilty of a crime? Or would there be no crime? Would there be ANY ability to stop someone from slaughtering an entire village?

In a perfect world, crimes would be strongly against everyone's beliefs. If someone started comitting violence, there would be people who would step up to stop it.

If a true anarchy isn't succesful, things like bioregional democracy would be positive steps towards dimishing a large power and reducing it to the local level, which, for those of you who disagree with anarchy, would allow for some control.

 

[Tycoon101]

Trade would perhaps be neccesary among ecovillages. Then again, with a simpler lifestyle and greater connection with nature, there wouldn't be nerely as high a demand for goods.

A question- Would these tiny societies be nomadic due to the drain on resources that they would have? Or would the grounds be able to be revitalized for permanent farming?

I also dislike how this would cripple scientific knoledge outside of natural studies. Would there be bosses or CEO's that dictate the jobs unto others? Or would that eliminate the anarchy?

 

[tomsnowman123]

I wish to know, what will sustain this "anarchy?" What is to stop those who are power hungry from creating some kind of governing body? Or perhaps, they are all equal, and for some reason desire to be equal, and won't take advantage of each other? Well that, my friend, is Communism. Congraduations, I told you anarchists are Communists!

Everyone will be equal because everyone is free from control. I wouldn't say that is communism, but merely an excersize of individualism and freedom of the highest level possible.

 

[Perfection]

The government's role should be to maximize the freedom to do what one wants. Certain thing like subsidized education and healthcare can often maximize freedom even though it requires the restrictions of certain freedoms to some. The government's size should be dependant on the size needed to maximize freedom and not some arbitrary philosophical inkling.

Voted for "I want total Anarchy." because I miss narchy.

 

[Tycoon101]

Everyone will be equal because everyone is free from control. I wouldn't say that is communism, but merely an excersize of individualism and freedom of the highest level possible.

So, if it isn't Communism, then it would promote the purest form of Capitalism? That might be a very good idea then... Hmm...

 

[tomsnowman123]

A question- Would these tiny societies be nomadic due to the drain on resources that they would have? Or would the grounds be able to be revitalized for permanent farming?

I also dislike how this would cripple scientific knoledge outside of natural studies. Would there be bosses or CEO's that dictate the jobs unto others? Or would that eliminate the anarchy?

I do support a hunter-gatherer lifestyle... if it wouldn't cause the massive death it would cause if it was attempted to be implemented today. Ecovillages would be able to trade with each other (as little as possible) and integrate with nature in a way so that humans can continue to live, like organic farming, locally grown food, permaculture. Again, a simple lifestyle would drastically reduce the excessive need of uneccesary goods we as humans have now. I am not advocating a return to the stoneage neccesarily, although I do believe the advent of agriculture is what caused civilization to go downhill.

Scientific knowledge is flawed these days, much of it is tied in with technology and is part of a military-industrial complex, so I am not big on science. And no bosses or CEO's, that is an example of people having more power than others.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Everyone will be equal because everyone is free from control. I wouldn't say that is communism, but merely an excersize of individualism and freedom of the highest level possible.

What is to stop people, a naturally social creature, from developing some kind of a hierarchial structure? That is how the human mind works, for this kind of thing to really happen and continue to happen, you would have to rework the fundamentals of the human mind, and that would create a whole new being. So, in short, this idea, while benevolent in it's origin, is simply not possible for homo sapiens to carry out.

 

[tomsnowman123]

So, if it isn't Communism, then it would promote the purest form of Capitalism? That might be a very good idea then... Hmm...

No, because capitalism inherently restricts freedom. Fair trade is more free than free trade.

 

[tomsnowman123]

What is to stop people, a naturally social creature, from developing some kind of a hierarchial structure? That is how the human mind works, for this kind of thing to really happen and continue to happen, you would have to rework the fundamentals of the human mind, and that would create a whole new being. So, in short, this idea, while benevolent in it's origin, is simply not possible for homo sapiens to carry out.

Anarchy is the epitome of social justice, and I believe that once true freedom is obtained, people will see that a heirarchial structure is flawed.

 

[Tycoon101]

I do support a hunter-gatherer lifestyle... if it wouldn't cause the massive death it would cause if it was attempted to be implemented today.

I support a hunter-gatherer lifestlye in the context of Survival Of The Fittest. And I really wouldn't care if it drove our population way down. Besides, our bodies are still designer to work like we have a hunter-gatherer society today, so it would be much healthier for humanity.

Aha! I have an idea! Go to Narz's thread about getting an island, and find one with all the resources that one would need to survive. Go to the island with whomever you wish, and live out your idyllic lifestyle there!

 

[tomsnowman123]

Aha! I have an idea! Go to Narz's thread about getting an island, and find one with all the resources that one would need to survive. Go to the island with whomever you wish, and live out your idyllic lifestyle there!

I have always wondered what it would be like to do something like that.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

What is to stop people, a naturally social creature, from developing some kind of a hierarchial structure?

This is my problem with anarchy.
A true Anarchy would be completely defenseless against a small group of people who arm themselves and form some kind oligarchy (aristocracy, theocracy, one-party system, whatever...).
You can be well educated and still hunger for power over peoples lives.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Tribes are ok as part of a hunter-gatherer complex.

But tribes have a chieftan/warlord/shaman/other authority figure who leads the tribe. There still is no anarchy it is just that the power has been localized.

Maybe we should take the always positive but inherently flawed view of "nothing's impossible."

It is inherently flawed. In reality it is impossible so it is useless to talk about anarchy in any other way except as a theoretical concept.

 

[tomsnowman123]

This is my problem with anarchy.
A true Anarchy would be completely defenseless against a small group of people who arm themselves and form some kind oligarchy (aristocracy, theocracy, one-party system, whatever...).
You can be well educated and still hunger for power over peoples lives.

Maybe/maybe not. Which is why I am willing to compromise with ecovillages and things like bioregional democracy, local purchasing to support a local economy; local food production and distribution; appropiate technology, fair trade, ecology, etc.

But tribes have a chieftan/warlord/shaman/other authority figure who leads the tribe. There still is no anarchy it is just that the power has been localized.

Tribes don't require leadership. Everyone could decide on an animal to hunt if they so choose to do that.