Anarchy and the aim of evolution

[Kriminal99]

Eventually coming full circle, and then some, to a revised version of what had happened in the past?

 

Irrifutably agreeing with other nations, to disagree could be a baby step. But, definatly not towards anarchy. United Nations of Earth, I would rock that flag for many moons.

 

Full circle yes in my opinion... Human societies always seem to be cyclical in nature. The moment everyone is fully educated on things like philosophy and morality is the moment it no longer seems like a priority and our will to do so begins to decline. With it in such a fragile society so would the peace.

[IDMclean]

Anarchy is not a society without laws, it is a society without top-down structure, without any given person "ruling" over you or your neighbor. Flat Heirarchy. Lends itself to highly metamorphic properties.

 

The laws are people's freedoms, their rights and responsibilities. When you impede on another's freedom, then you break the law. Just like in current society, if you break the law, then the law will be enforce.

 

The main hurtles are:

Consensus. Agreeing on a unified set of reasonable guidelines to goverening a state like the USA, for instance.

Education. Understanding the dynamics of such a system, and being able to participate in multipul layers of of said system.

 

For a different type of Anarchy, the dynamics change. I personally like a Moral Socialist Anarchy. (Judicial, Economic, Power Distribution).

 

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

 

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

 

It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production to implement their aims. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.

[DarkColoredLight]

Full circle yes in my opinion... Human societies always seem to be cyclical in nature. The moment everyone is fully educated on things like philosophy and morality is the moment it no longer seems like a priority and our will to do so begins to decline. With it in such a fragile society so would the peace.

 

Does that mean we can't pick up the peaces and start a new good trend. That way we are prepared for time's of desperate mesures?

 

Because the way I see it, desperate mesures call for desperate times. So the next, more serious, desperate time can be mesured closer and possibly prevented.

 

This sounds farmiliar to me, something about september of 2001.

[Kriminal99]

Does that mean we can't pick up the peaces and start a new good trend. That way we are prepared for time's of desperate mesures?

 

Because the way I see it, desperate mesures call for desperate times. So the next, more serious, desperate time can be mesured closer and possibly prevented.

 

This sounds farmiliar to me, something about september of 2001.

 

But when an anarchist utopia messes up, it messes up bad. First you might have people with different beliefs about certain things strongly disagreeing and eventually fighting with one another, and then the fighting itself would take center stage and it would just be a bunch of different gangs killing each other for personal gain etc...

[IDMclean]

Fighting, as well as voilence are impeding on anothers freedoms. If the people involved wish to engage in such backwards action, then let them. If they formally choose to dual each other to the death, then let them.

 

If choice is not the case and hey fight, hurt, and kill without first securing each other's Choice, then they are criminal, and are to be tried before the people in a court of law. Anarchy is not without law, it is without Pyramid scemes.

 

For a society to work, it must have laws, and it must have order. It must have consensus. For truely adaptive society, it must have the discenting voices. The portions that questions the norm, and strive to make the world a better place, even at the cost of thier own lively hood.

 

Gangs are alright, so long as they act in a moral way. By moral I mean the kinds of things that the majority can accept, such as Thou shall not kill.

 

It may even be that three golden rules apply. Safe, Sane, Consentual.

[Boerseun]

The argument can also be made that Government is a human being writ large.

Much like a termite nest is much more than a heap of sand covering a few thousand bugs - I mean, heck - they've got radiating vanes built north/south so as to maximize cooling (in Australia), etc. - a single bug can't come up with it, they need 'government' to streamline their collective effort.

So, government is human society to the n'th power. And the health of your particular government would say a lot of your society. Governments are (for the most part) formed and shaped from the bottom up.

 

If you take a bunch of people and put them on an island, Survivor-style (but without the cameras and silly challenges) and you leave them there for a couple of years, is 'Government' inevitable? Will somebody eventually put his/her foot down and lay down the law for all the slackers on the island? And they will hold to the law out of fear/respect/intimidation?

 

Governments could sometimes actually be quite cool. In leaner, healthier times, the US govt put a couple of men on the moon. Today, the US govt is a bloated, overinflated monster of sluggish beaurocracy. Obesity in the States is rife! (coincidence, obviously, funny nonetheless)

 

If anarchy is the absence of any form of government, it would be like termites living without a mound. I don't think its possible. I think government will crystallize out of nowhere if enough people are around for long enough - (like the island example). And with government comes laws, whether agreed to or not by a specific individual. These laws could be written down or just be a common understanding, but they would be laws, nonetheless.

[IDMclean]

Boerseun, you are quite astute. Most think Anarchy is NO goverment, NO law, and NO structure.

 

This is not true. Anarchy is a Goverment style. It's like Republics, Democracy, and Monarchy.

 

"The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist."

--Ernst Jünger

 

The major paradigm shift is in that NO one is higher in station than you are. We are all equal. You can not demand of me to do something, that you likewise would not do.

 

The community is made up of equal power people. they together can enact things, projects, expenditures, taxes, and all that. The people are the Government. The termites in this structure figure out what needs to go on by free forum.

 

For Example:

I purpose a change to be instituted and it is then examined by the majority for merit/flaw. Each person brings to the table their two cents, and in the end it is either Adopted, Adjusted, or Rejected.

[DarkColoredLight]

If anarchy is the absence of any form of government, it would be like termites living without a mound. I don't think its possible. I think government will crystallize out of nowhere if enough people are around for long enough - (like the island example). And with government comes laws, whether agreed to or not by a specific individual. These laws could be written down or just be a common understanding, but they would be laws, nonetheless.

 

Or it will bring people closer. Families will run businesses, guarded by freinds and family, up and running by freinds and family.

 

Which over time will just be mobs running around having each others back, shooting different mobs in the back. Untill the ones that don't shoot, and don't have reasons not to get shot are left standing. In this situation anarchy would be utopia or abolished to fit the needs of the new power culture.

 

The way things look now, the one's left standing in that scenario will die just as the one's fighting. As long as government is run by officials elected and accepted by officials then we will stay officially governed. I believe Megadeth said "The system will fail." I'm just helping in whatever way I can. Remember the three sides of every pyramid.

[Kriminal99]

How can there be laws when everyone is on equal ground. Noone would agree on the laws. Some people would claim speeding on the highway is an immoral act and others would say it is not. Some people would want to try someone for it, and others would believe it a breach of personal freedom to tell another how fast they can go. Then the two sides would fight each other over it, and then the two sides would hate the other side and just kill them for fun and take all their resources etc.

[IDMclean]

Alright, heres a thought regarding that senario. Does speeding endanger your fellow citizens? Does drinking and driving? I would say, yes, indeed it does. Regardless of what that person wants to think, at velocities higher than 5 MPH a half-ton to 2 ton vehical is dangerous, it is a Privillage to own and opperate such a dangerous beast. As always the Driver is responsible for the safety of the people around them. If they ignore this responsiblity, they endager themselves and others. Endangering others without their explicit consent is impeding on their freedom.

 

Your freedom extends so far as it does not cross the freedoms of another.

 

Then the two sides would fight each other over it, and then the two sides would hate the other side and just kill them for fun and take all their resources etc.

 

I don't see this happening here and now, and nothing stops people from doing it, other than other people. So the point is invalid and exteame.

 

just kill them for fun

This is illegal, explicitly under anarchy. Anarchy is not Autarchy. Anarchy is not Despotism.

 

Anarchy does not work with those who are not concearned for their fellow man. Severe Sociopaths and Psychopaths would not thrive in an Anarchy. In 90% of cases it is strictly illegal to end the life of another.

[Kriminal99]

Alright, heres a thought regarding that senario. Does speeding endanger your fellow citizens? Does drinking and driving? I would say, yes, indeed it does. Regardless of what that person wants to think, at velocities higher than 5 MPH a half-ton to 2 ton vehical is dangerous, it is a Privillage to own and opperate such a dangerous beast. As always the Driver is responsible for the safety of the people around them. If they ignore this responsiblity, they endager themselves and others. Endangering others without their explicit consent is impeding on their freedom.

 

Your freedom extends so far as it does not cross the freedoms of another.

 

 

 

I don't see this happening here and now, and nothing stops people from doing it, other than other people. So the point is invalid and exteame.

 

 

This is illegal, explicitly under anarchy. Anarchy is not Autarchy. Anarchy is not Despotism.

 

Anarchy does not work with those who are not concearned for their fellow man. Severe Sociopaths and Psychopaths would not thrive in an Anarchy. In 90% of cases it is strictly illegal to end the life of another.

 

The idea that it is immoral to speed on the highway is rife with poor reasoning imo, and I believe the fact that it goes far to fund local governments is no coincedence. To cite a few points I often use in this debate, the chance of dying in a car wreck is actually REALLY small (what was it thousandths of a percent per year) for the average driver, and many people may consider the difference in risk due to variations in speed negligable. In germany there are no speed limits yet their fatality rate from accidents is the same as ours. (Although they also have stricter rules about things like being in the right lane if not passing)

 

If you tell me how fast I can drive due to what I percieve as your poor understanding of the situation, which effects my economic efficiency negatively, I would then look at it like you are crossing my freedom.

 

You do not see peopel fighting over it now because we (the us) do not have anarchy as a government. The government basically brainwashes the majority of people into believing that speed = immoral with poorly reasoned jingles and authoritarian symbols like the police that are supposed to represent something more powerful than you. You want to dispel that image, and that very act opens the door to more free thinking about what really is right and wrong.

 

You say it is immoral to kill, but obviously you would kill someone who would kill you first to stop him. Would you kill a cop who wanted to take your money because he was brainwashed into believing it was wrong to speed and if you fought back the fight escalated? Probably not because cops have huge networks of reinforcement and you would eventually be caught and tried. At trial they would say you shouldn't have killed the cop or sped because they are against the law, and if you disagreed you should have petitioned fellow citizens or congress. But if you lobbied politicians who are responsible for brainwashing citizens into believing it is wrong, they would just ignore you because they don't have to consider your reasoning. If you petition normal people to get more on your side most of them are too brainwashed about it to even consider it might be wrong. So you end up just deciding the fight isn't worth it compared to other aspects of your life and just accept it.

 

But would you if the cop didn't have that network? Suppose he just insisted that speeding was immoral and then you insisted it wasn't and then he tried to resort to force and you realized he had no backup network so you just smoked him first and went about your buisness...

[IDMclean]

In germany there are no speed limits yet their fatality rate from accidents is the same as ours.

 

Drunk driving is worthy of capital punishment. In the European countries, there are not accidents, only irresponsibility.

If you tell me how fast I can drive due to what I percieve as your poor understanding of the situation, which effects my economic efficiency negatively, I would then look at it like you are crossing my freedom.

 

Your Economic freedom you are saying? How about this: No car for you, as it impedes on my economic freedom. Cars are inefficent creatures, they are convenient, but not efficent. Take the bus, or rally for better transportation systems, like Mag-rail. I've already voiced my analysis (incompletely) of cars and your average joe.

 

You say it is immoral to kill, but obviously you would kill someone who would kill you first to stop him.

 

This is a gross misrepresentation of me and a fallacy. False dilemma, If-by-whiskey, Strawman. All seem appropiate.

 

I am a practioner of ahimsa. I know that I do not practice it as strictly as I would like but No I would not kill. It is Immoral, in the majority of situation. I would attempt to subdue, or prevent harm, most likely I would leave the situation if the possibilty presented itself.

 

You say it is immoral to kill, but obviously you would kill someone who would kill you first to stop him. Would you kill a cop who wanted to take your money because he was brainwashed into believing it was wrong to speed and if you fought back the fight escalated? Probably not because cops have huge networks of reinforcement and you would eventually be caught and tried. At trial they would say you shouldn't have killed the cop or sped because they are against the law, and if you disagreed you should have petitioned fellow citizens or congress. But if you lobbied politicians who are responsible for brainwashing citizens into believing it is wrong, they would just ignore you because they don't have to consider your reasoning. If you petition normal people to get more on your side most of them are too brainwashed about it to even consider it might be wrong. So you end up just deciding the fight isn't worth it compared to other aspects of your life and just accept it.

 

I believe this is a false arguement style.

* Irrelevant Conclusion (also called Ignoratio Elenchi), wherein, instead of proving the fact in dispute, the arguer seeks to gain his point by diverting attention to some extraneous fact (as in the legal story of "No case. Abuse the plaintiff's attorney"). The fallacies are common in platform oratory, in which the speaker obscures the real issue by appealing to his audience on the grounds of

o purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem)

o popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority)

o fear (argumentum ad baculum)

o conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam)

 

This fallacy has been illustrated by ethical or theological arguments wherein the fear of punishment is subtly substituted for abstract right as the sanction of moral obligation.

 

Most important of all I would not kill over the loss of something as inconsiquential as material goods. Money is but paper, it only has the power that one puts behind it. If money is worthless to me, and all the dollars in the world can not buy what I have to sell, then it is without merit, it is but paper.

 

Also, further. Anarchy is not without structure, it is flat topography. You still have police. They still have their friends and family, and the community. Police are to Protect and Serve. America is nearly a full out Police state. Which makes sense, as Elaborate Empire tends to breed Elaborate Police States.

[IDMclean]

Also, I have to ask again. what is the definition of anarchy that you are following, and what Information can you bring to the table to backup your assertion for that definition?

[Buffy]

I know that you are working from the definitions of others in describing Anarchy in this thread (with your own good foundation and understanding and interpretation of it showing through, bravo!). There are those that dispute these definitions of Anarchy as an attempt to dress up the original definition of Anarchy--which is more commonly considered to be, yes, the lack of law or government--because of the extremely negative implications thereof, which has been a critical element in this thread. In fact many argue that what these neo-Anarchists are describing is merely renaming of Direct Democracy, which has all of the attributes you have described above, mostly in an attempt to avoid any comparison with Democracy, which is held as evil by definition by the neo-Anarchists (along with all other forms of government as well).

 

Resolved: there is no difference between neo-Anarchism and Direct Democracy. Discuss.

 

Buckleyesque,

Buffy

[IDMclean]

Works for me, I do not hold that a society can exist without government. I hold infact that government is vital to the society.

 

Fat "I am better than you" type governments, like what we have is not governement it is a parasite, leeching off the good people of this land.

 

I suppose we can eliminate the Distiction for Neo-Anarchy and True Democracy. As both are egalatarian structures.

[paigetheoracle]

I believe natural evolution does lead to this point but because life isn't stagnant, it will also go beyond it again through boredom (war and peace alternate/ 'Everything put together falls apart' Paul Simon/ The only constant in the universe is change - need I go on?).

 

Nuclear war may be the attempt to hold everything in stasis mentally but physically it's obviously the opposite. Peace allows forward progress (change) - war is the attempt to stop the juggernaut progressing and is defensive fear in action but it happens. What pulls a society down is hidden motives, not honesty (how can I trick someone else to get more for myself?). In a land of plenty, trickery isn't needed (The New Age has a term called 'poverty consciousness', that I like to use in this connection. It means (the way I use it anyway) if you are afraid that you don't or won't have enough to survive on, you don't share what you've got but steal from others). Of course human catastrophe isn't the only home wrecker (Armageddon out of here!), so an ideal world can only be temporary anyway, in my opinion (Stay awake, stay alert and hope your senses can alert you to danger and keep you and your society alive).