Anarchy

[Damion]

This was the most relevant forum I saw, and I couldn't find any related threads, so I thought I'd post my first.

 

I consider myself an anarchist at heart. While the subject of anarchy is usually seen as idealistic, barbaric, childish, even (dare I say it) stupid, I can't help but think people are better off left to their own devices. Philosophy and free-thinking are at their best when even the most liberal or conservative thoughts aren't considered radical, and any restrictions, especially those applied by a system of government or political party, only hinder the progress of intellect. Laws are often ineffective and often do more harm than good. As Plato put it, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

 

PSA aside, here's the subject -- Does anyone know of any experiments in anarchy? The best I can seem to find are references to a French revolution and how successful peasants were at governing themselves, but it's no good for my purposes...

[TimeTraveler]

Anarchy: Absence of governmental authority or law; Disorder and confusion - America Heritage dictionary.

 

I do not see anarchy as barbaric, childish or idealistic, but I just do not see it as realistic.

 

It would seem to me that even without government there would still need to be some form of structure in any given society.

 

Laws are often ineffective and often do more harm than good.

 

How so?

 

By the way welcome to the boards!

[Aardvark]

It sounds like you incline more toward libertarianism than anarchism.

 

I don't think there have ever been any practical examples of a functioning anarchy. Failed states like Somalia are sometimes called anarchys but in reality are run by warlords. Power structures always seem to develop in human societies, it appears to be innate.

[YT2095]

Power structures always seem to develop in human societies, it appears to be innate.

I agree totaly. a state of "Anarchy" may exist for a short while durring upheaval or upset, but it`s always very short lived. eventualy a state of "Order" will always prevail. it`s all part of our Pack Animal mentality, eventualy the people cry out for some type of order/justice/control, usualy falling on the one best fit to lead.

[Damion]

How so?

 

See the quote (Plato).

 

Also, you can't have crime without law. The three main reasons for committing a crime are convenience, money and thrill. Eliminate the laws, there goes reason 1 and 3. Eliminate the government and the idea of personal property, you eliminate the purpose of money and reason 2.

 

By the way welcome to the boards!

 

Thanks. This site has quickly become a daily haunt for me.

[Damion]

I agree totaly. a state of "Anarchy" may exist for a short while durring upheaval or upset, but it`s always very short lived. eventualy a state of "Order" will always prevail. it`s all part of our Pack Animal mentality, eventualy the people cry out for some type of order/justice/control, usualy falling on the one best fit to lead.

 

I suppose the only way to achieve anything like an anarchist society is to make sure your group is dedicated to the cause.

[Pangloss]

I don't know that I'd go around quoting Plato as a proponent of anarchy. He was opposed to democracy. There is a difference. Just to give an obvious example, he said, "Laws are partly formed for the sake of good men, in order to instruct them how they may live on friendly terms with one another, and partly for the sake of those who refuse to be instructed, whose spirit cannot be subdued, or softened, or hindered from plunging into evil."

 

I'm afraid you're going to have to better than popular catch-phrases and witty slogans with this crowd.

[Damion]

I don't know that I'd go around quoting Plato as a proponent of anarchy.

I wouldn't, either. But, the quote made a good point and did it well. I wanted to use it, I cited the source. It wasn't an attempt to make it seem like there was some anarchy bandwagon. It was 1) laziness and 2) a product of my tendency to read books and websites dedicated entirely to famous quotes and write them down in my ever-present notebooks.

 

I'm afraid you're going to have to better than popular catch-phrases and witty slogans with this crowd.

I wasn't aware it was a "popular catch-phrase."

[Pangloss]

No worries, I meant it in an friendly way. I happen to like popular catch-phrases and witty slogans, as I'm sure many here will (painfully) attest.

 

I sympathize with your disappointment in this thread. I'm afraid you just have the bad luck of hitting a smart crowd with a familiar argument. If you have anything else to add in defense of anarchy I'm sure we'll be happy to listen. It's a pretty receptive group here, or so it seems to me. They've certainly heard me climb on the soapbox a few times.

[TimeTraveler]

Also, you can't have crime without law. The three main reasons for committing a crime are convenience, money and thrill. Eliminate the laws, there goes reason 1 and 3. Eliminate the government and the idea of personal property, you eliminate the purpose of money and reason 2.

 

There is alot more reasons than that as to why crimes are comitted.

 

Need, depression, hunger, survival, revenge, dislike, anger, drunken stupidity..... the list goes on.

 

But as you say without law there is no law to break, but what then? What if someone gets drunk and kills someone, or what about drugs, what about school systems, what about the army... There are a million things that would need to be considered and worked out.

 

I am all for a better world, but I don't see how any form of anarchy could provide that.

 

What would you propose to make anarchy work in any given society?

[Damion]

But as you say without law there is no law to break' date=' but what then? What if someone gets drunk and kills someone, or what about drugs, what about school systems, what about the army... There are a million things that would need to be considered and worked out.

 

I am all for a better world, but I don't see how any form of anarchy could provide that.[/quote']

 

In a lawless society, there would, potentially, be severe consequences for harming someone else. Personally, I'm a pacifist, but I could easily see someone taking the "eye for an eye" approach. There's murder in all cultures, but with anarchy you eliminate a lot of the reasons someone would have for killing. Any system has a number glitches -- I think anarchy has the fewest.

 

As for drugs, the main force behind the thriving drug market is, you know, the market. With no money or property, drugs would be manufactured/grown purely for enjoyment, not for monetary gain. People might have a field of marijuana, but they wouldn't be able to sell it, or even own it. It would be, essentially, community property. This would, theoretically, limit drug production down to a minimum.

 

What would you propose to make anarchy work in any given society?

It wouldn't work on a large scale, I don't think. Too many greedy people. But, a small community of people dedicated to freedom... My ideal is a small commune. you grow your own food, or work with others to grow food. Build your own house, or work with others (and on and on). To survive, you would have to be liked by as many people as possible, or very self-sufficient. Community would, by nescessity, take center stage. So would matters of the soul. Without an economic force, science would suffer, but art and philosophy would thrive. Ideally, at least.

 

I think all that would be needed to make anarchy work would be, basically, a fresh start. I can see how government formed -- slowly, with increasing complexity. But, as things have developed, there has been increasing emphasis on freedom. If you had a group of people who agreed that maximum control wasn't nescessary, or even beneficial, anarchy could work. For at least a generation or two.

[YT2095]

In a lawless society, there would, potentially, be severe consequences for harming someone else. Personally, I'm a pacifist, but I could easily see someone taking the "eye for an eye" approach. There's murder in all cultures

the only problem with the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy is Who kills the executioner?

 

I could see a dwindling population problem being an issue here

[TimeTraveler]

Hypothetical Situation:

 

Lets say America decided to make a free state of Anarchists, Lets say they gave the anarchists half of Montana.

 

Certainly you would have many people wanting to join an anarchist state to get away from the structure of law. Many of them would no doubt be criminals who did not want to abide by authority. As you stated earlier some crimes are committed because of convenience. How would this eliminate convenience? If someone did not want to work or be apart of the community what would stop them from stealing what they needed? Who would enforce it? What if he killed someone, the guy is dead he cannot get revenge, who would enforce that? what about when more and more people started populating this free state, how would land be divided and what happens in the case of disagreements over it?

 

My point is, no matter what you will need a structure, something everyone agreed to, or a majority... which would entail a vote. Set standards would be passed (although you might not call them laws, they in fact would have to mean nearly the same thing). Before you know it, your back to square one.

 

I don't see it as realistic. In the end, problems arise and they need a structure to be resolved.

[Sayonara]

I suppose the only way to achieve anything like an anarchist society is to make sure your group is dedicated to the cause.

Can you do that in an anarchy?

[TimeTraveler]

Good point Sayo.

 

By your own words Damion you say you need to make sure your group is dedicated to the cause. Which cannot be done without structure.

[Aardvark]

There's murder in all cultures, but with anarchy you eliminate a lot of the reasons someone would have for killing.

 

The main reasons tend to be disagreements about money, or about sex.

 

Even in an anarchy they will be things of worth which people will have disputes over, assuming all people don't become completely alturistic which seems improbable.

 

And sexual jealousy, i doubt any political system can avoid that.

[john5746]

 

It wouldn't work on a large scale' date=' I don't think. Too many greedy people. But, a small community of people dedicated to freedom... My ideal is a small commune. you grow your own food, or work with others to grow food. Build your own house, or work with others (and on and on). To survive, you would have to be liked by as many people as possible, or very self-sufficient. Community would, by nescessity, take center stage. So would matters of the soul. Without an economic force, science would suffer, but art and philosophy would thrive. Ideally, at least.

 

[/quote']

 

You are thinking communism. Anarchy would be closer to capitalism, with the strongest winning it all.

[Sayonara]

Sign outside Anarchic state:

 

 

"Welcome to Anarchia.

 

Please be anarchic, but not too anarchic. We don't want to become capitalists.

 

ps - that's not a rule, it's a guideline.

 

pps - just do it would you."

[Pangloss]

hehe

[Aardvark]

My ideal is a small commune. you grow your own food' date=' or work with others to grow food. Build your own house, or work with others (and on and on). To survive, you would have to be liked by as many people as possible, or very self-sufficient. Community would, by nescessity, take center stage. So would matters of the soul.

[/quote']

 

 

It sounds like that bucolic paradise, Pitcairn island, where people romp free of commercial restraints. Happy and innocent, working as a big extending family full of community spirit. Where children are safe and ..........

 

Ooops.

 

Utopian ideals sound great, but people always seem to find a way to bugger them up.

[Damion]

Lets say America decided to make a free state of Anarchists, Lets say they gave the anarchists half of Montana.

 

Structure increases the size of a community. With no control and no centralization, there would be no reason for any community to become very large. In this hypothetical situation, the hypothetical anarchists would hypothetically form hundreds of little communities of maybe a couple dozen people.

 

Certainly you would have many people wanting to join an anarchist state to get away from the structure of law. Many of them would no doubt be criminals who did not want to abide by authority. As you stated earlier some crimes are committed because of convenience. How would this eliminate convenience?

 

It would eliminate the need.

 

If someone did not want to work or be apart of the community what would stop them from stealing what they needed?

 

There would be no personal property.

 

 

This is where community comes into play. If the victim was a sociable, loved person, many people would be seeking revenge on his killer. The killer would either be killed or shunned, I assume.

 

What about when more and more people started populating this free state, how would land be divided and what happens in the case of disagreements over it?

 

There would be no land-ownership.

 

Can you do that in an anarchy?

 

I think so. Think, indoctrination.

 

If you're going to start an anarchist community, do so with fellow anarchists. Always keep the reasons for the move toward anarchy in mind. Keep the member of the community politically active, in a sense.

 

Also, in such a community, the aid of others would most likely be needed. And people are fickle. If you do anything to harm them, you lose their support. You may even be asked to leave the community -- ideally, you wouldn't be forced to, as that would be control, but you may be pressured to. Either way, it's beneficial to maintain a good relationship with those around you, and sharing a moral standard is a great way to stay on someone's good side.

 

rambleramble

[Aardvark]

 

There would be no personal property.

 

 

 

There would be no land-ownership.

 

 

 

I think so. Think' date=' indoctrination.

 

 

 

rambleramble[/quote']

 

That doesn't sound like anarchy, it sounds like a form of communism.

 

Maybe we need to take a closer look at our definitions. What exactly do you consider to be anarchy? It seems to be different from most concepts of that state of affairs.

[Damion]

That doesn't sound like anarchy' date=' it sounds like a form of communism.

 

Maybe we need to take a closer look at our definitions. What exactly do you consider to be anarchy? It seems to be different from most concepts of that state of affairs.[/quote']

 

an·ar·chy ( P ) (nr-k)

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.

 

There would be no law. Property is an idea enforced by law. Personal property would have to be constantly guarded, and as such I think the idea of it would become tiresome and you'd get a mostly community-owned system. Theoretically.

[Aardvark]

There would be no law. Property is an idea enforced by law.

 

I don't see it that way. I think property predates law. Abolishing law will not abolish property.

 

For instance, in your society a man clears some land, works hard to plant and tend a crop and then harvests it. He will then be naturally resentful if someone else states 'there is no such thing as property' and helps himself to the harvest.

 

I think we have to accept that the idea of property is natural to our species. Any society would have to find a way of working with that idea rather than against it.

[Damion]

I think we have to accept that the idea of property is natural to our species. Any society would have to find a way of working with that idea rather than against it.

 

But you also have to keep in mind that people are communual animals. Not everyone would do the group thing, that's fine. But survival would depend on others. And the sharing of one's belongings is an age-old friend maker.