Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: Anarchy

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Arbuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    415

    Anarchy

    Is Anarchy a chaotic utopia or is it a perfectly self managed governmentless society?

    I have a problem when some people use the words leaders and democracy to talk about Uncle Sam.

    Its a real problem for me. Sorry.

    What about direct democracy and parlamentarism?
    Is the U.S. as a country going anywhere politically or just managing killing, policing and increasing its greed?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbuz

    I have a problem when some people use the words leaders and democracy to talk about Uncle Sam.
    Why do you have a problem with that? The US is not a democracy and we
    have no desire to become one. It would likely cause another civil war.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Arbuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    415
    I appreciate your honesty. But some people use the word like toilet paper with diarreah.
    It is just dissapointing to see the worlds most powerful country do absolutely nothing for political progress.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbuz
    I appreciate your honesty. But some people use the word like toilet paper with diarreah.
    It is just dissapointing to see the worlds most powerful country do absolutely nothing for political progress.
    I'm not sure we are on the same page.

    I think, and the founding fathers of this country believed, that democracy is bad.
    I get annoyed when I hear our "leaders" talking about bring democracy to other
    lands when we ourselves think democracies are BAD.

    I get a kick outta asking people to find the word democracy in the US
    Constitution or any states Constitution. The word never occurs.

  5. #5
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    "Is Anarchy a chaotic utopia or is it a perfectly self managed governmentless society?"

    Anarchy is the absence of political authority. Dictionary.com offers a definition as; "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." This is a definition that agrees with my own understanding of anarchy.

    Unfortunately, the majority of people are too lazy and too selfish to be able to accept anything approaching the personal responsibility required for such a society, preferring democratic despotism, or religion, instead.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    "Is Anarchy a chaotic utopia or is it a perfectly self managed governmentless society?"

    Anarchy is the absence of political authority. Dictionary.com offers a definition as; "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." This is a definition that agrees with my own understanding of anarchy.

    Unfortunately, the majority of people are too lazy and too selfish to be able to accept anything approaching the personal responsibility required for such a society, preferring democratic despotism, or religion, instead.

    So anarchy is bad because people at stupid and evil which would make it not work.
    That being the case, would not socialism be broken for the same reasons?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,442
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    "Is Anarchy a chaotic utopia or is it a perfectly self managed governmentless society?"

    Anarchy is the absence of political authority. Dictionary.com offers a definition as; "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." This is a definition that agrees with my own understanding of anarchy.

    Unfortunately, the majority of people are too lazy and too selfish to be able to accept anything approaching the personal responsibility required for such a society, preferring democratic despotism, or religion, instead.
    well then in that case Anarchy is literally impossible, because as human nature does it's thing, there will always be somebody trying to impose their beliefs and will on others, and such actions are inseperable from politics. After all, politics is just the tool and medium for controling others.
    Last edited by Zonk0u; 02-08-2007 at 11:07 AM.
    "What would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people werent scared anymore?"

  8. #8
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    And I believe that you underestimate the capacity of human nature, ZonkOu.

  9. #9
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    "So anarchy is bad because people at stupid and evil which would make it not work.
    That being the case, would not socialism be broken for the same reasons?"
    (sic)

    I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean that people are stupid and evil?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,442
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    And I believe that you underestimate the capacity of human nature, ZonkOu.
    I dont. We are a gregarious species, and do so because we know we can achieve more together than we can alone. In order to coordinate these more complex tasks and goals, there needs to be one vision in order to achieve that goal together, otherwise you got 100 different people doing 100 different things and nothing gets done. Thats why we've evovled to societies and tribes who have chiefs, leaders, elders, shaman etc etc etc who have been put to power to direct and control their subjects, wheither it be for ill or good intention.

    this is even evident within the immediate family. Can you tell me who ran the house between your parents? who wore the pants? who was the boss? who had the final word? You see even within the family there is this human nature that comes into play with our hierarchy.
    "What would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people werent scared anymore?"

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,679
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel
    Why do you have a problem with that? The US is not a democracy and we
    have no desire to become one. It would likely cause another civil war.
    I think that you have point here...

    The U.S. system as well as our parliamentary system is nothing more than a benign dictatorship, controlled by the party/person in power...Canada does not vote for our Prime Minister, he is elected head of the party, by the party, and into government by his riding...very few people, sometimes by only a few thousand votes.

    Americans have lost control of their government, have no say on the agenda, and have no impact on legislation. They tend to vote for the party, have no real choices, and are subject to slander or worse if they question their elected officials.

    Nixon had a tendency to sic the IRS on his "enemies", Hoover had secret files, to question Bush is to commit social and carreer suicide

  12. #12
    C88
    C88 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    Anarchy is the absence of political authority. Dictionary.com offers a definition as; "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." This is a definition that agrees with my own understanding of anarchy.
    But what about the Webster definition? "A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority"

    Since there have been laws, there have been outlaws—those who live outside of societal norms. Even your definition accepts some form of law in it's "cooperative association" and "organized society". Whatever norms there may be in your scenario, these can roughly be construed as "law".

    So how do you deal with outlaws? They exist and they won't be going away. Outlaw mentality plays a large role in human nature.

    Historically, people (society) prosper best under strong and healthy leadership. In general though, most humans will feel more comfortable under leadership of ANY kind than even the kind of benevolent (though highly unrealistic, IMO) anarchy you propose.

  13. #13
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    ZonkOu,

    Anarchy isn't about not working together; it could almost be the opposite, in fact. You have to try to see it as it's own thing, rather than comparative to any system that you may understand or have experienced.

    The belief that social systems must be hierarchical is perpetrated by people who either are, or wish to be, at the top of one. That an individual authority may exist through experience is undoubtable, but that doesn't necessarily demand that that individual should view theirself as superior, or that those with less experience should see theirself as inferior, which is the state that a hierarchy creates.

    My family background is not what one would call typical, although I did see the politics of the group I spent my early years with. The political system that exists in the UK is one that promotes the 'family' ideas of which you speak, but it does so because it suits the political system, not because it is in any way better for the individual, or even the group that the 'family' consists of.
    'Human nature' is not defined and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is not being truthful.
    Peace,
    Steve

  14. #14
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    "But what about the Webster definition? "A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority""

    I disagree with it.

    "Since there have been laws, there have been outlaws—those who live outside of societal norms. Even your definition accepts some form of law in it's "cooperative association" and "organized society". Whatever norms there may be in your scenario, these can roughly be construed as "law"."

    There is a difference between not doing something because you are told not to do it and not doing something because you don't want to do it. It is also possible for an individual to organise someting without being told how to do it.

    "In general though, most humans will feel more comfortable under leadership of ANY kind"

    It's important to ask yourself why that may be.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    "So anarchy is bad because people at stupid and evil which would make it not work.
    That being the case, would not socialism be broken for the same reasons?"
    (sic)

    I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean that people are stupid and evil?

    What I mean is that if anarchy would not work if people are stupid and evil
    then socialism would not work for the same reason.

    And yes, people are evil, we are made that way. The bible says it's so.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by JM01
    I think that you have point here...

    The U.S. system as well as our parliamentary system is nothing more than a benign dictatorship, controlled by the party/person in power...Canada does not vote for our Prime Minister, he is elected head of the party, by the party, and into government by his riding...very few people, sometimes by only a few thousand votes.

    Americans have lost control of their government, have no say on the agenda, and have no impact on legislation. They tend to vote for the party, have no real choices, and are subject to slander or worse if they question their elected officials.

    Nixon had a tendency to sic the IRS on his "enemies", Hoover had secret files, to question Bush is to commit social and carreer suicide
    Americans ceded control to the two parties. We are too soft and lazy to
    TAKE it back.

    Oh, and your party affiliation is showing with your comments on Nixon, Hoover and Bush. Why did you not include Clinton's use of the IRS and FBI? Or any Demoncrat? Do
    only Repukes abuse power? IF you are going to whine about Americans losing
    control of their govt at least be fair in that blame can be placed on BOTH parties.

  17. #17
    banned
    Reputation: bloviating's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    "But what about the Webster definition? "A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority""

    I disagree with it.

    "Since there have been laws, there have been outlaws—those who live outside of societal norms. Even your definition accepts some form of law in it's "cooperative association" and "organized society". Whatever norms there may be in your scenario, these can roughly be construed as "law"."

    There is a difference between not doing something because you are told not to do it and not doing something because you don't want to do it. It is also possible for an individual to organise someting without being told how to do it.

    "In general though, most humans will feel more comfortable under leadership of ANY kind"

    It's important to ask yourself why that may be.
    There is no culture that exists without some form of hierarchy. Watch toddlers get together in any society and a pecking order will soon follow. Even within the traditional anarchist movements (i'm thinking of the one in Spain during the late 19th century) there was a hierarchy.

    A problem in many societies is that western "democracy" is a foriegn concept. I'm using the term democracy loosely. Look at Russia and Putin, society is reverting to what it knows, strong authoritarian rule.

    In short, I personaly don't believe anarchy can work. My belief in the "goodness" of humanity is pessimistic.

  18. #18
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    "And yes, people are evil, we are made that way. The bible says it's so."

    'Evil' is an invention of theists to describe and explain the negative aspects of human behaviour. If you limit your understanding of human behaviour to 'good' and 'evil' you will deny yourself the opportunity of countless emotional experiences.

  19. #19
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    It is not possible to understand an alien concept by comparing it to previous or existing concepts. Learn to understand an idea or concept for what it is, not what it could/would/might be similar to.

    "There is no culture that exists without some form of hierarchy."

    With all due respect, I sincerely doubt that you are in a position to make such an all-encompassing statement.

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation: bloviating's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    "And yes, people are evil, we are made that way. The bible says it's so."

    'Evil' is an invention of theists to describe and explain the negative aspects of human behaviour. If you limit your understanding of human behaviour to 'good' and 'evil' you will deny yourself the opportunity of countless emotional experiences.
    Every culture, from the most isolated to the most globalized has a concept of right and wrong, good and evil.

    Interesting aside: There has never been any society studied that does not have a concept of religion.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK

    'Evil' is an invention of theists to describe and explain the negative aspects of human behaviour. If you limit your understanding of human behaviour to 'good' and 'evil' you will deny yourself the opportunity of countless emotional experiences.

    Are you saying Evil does not exist?

    Steve, sure there are alot of behaviours which are not evil nor good. Some things
    are white, somethings are black and somethings are shades of gray/grey.

    Why do you think I think that way?

  22. #22
    C88
    C88 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,748
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    I disagree with it.
    That's a little ridiculous. But, anarchist ideology has no basis in reality so that answer is not surprising.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    There is a difference between not doing something because you are told not to do it and not doing something because you don't want to do it. It is also possible for an individual to organise someting without being told how to do it.
    I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I'll put it like this. Let's say that you're living in your peaceful little commune and 40 men show up who want to rape and steal your women. What is your anarchist solution?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    It's important to ask yourself why that may be.
    That's very simple. All animals (including humans) are pre-programmed for SURVIVAL. That takes precedence. If that survival plan includes a cooperative environment than that will work. Once cooperation no longer provides for survival than we see where anarchy becomes what it really is.

    Nearly all animals live in heirarchical societies. To move beyond a heirarchical organization is not progress. All beings are individuals and have individual capabilities. Anarchist ideology seeks to completely ignore this natural fact. The best will win. Fighting nature is a losing battle.

    What we have seen is that humans are fairly social creatures and will choose to live cooperatively when it appears that this increases chances for survival. Whenever there may be conflicting needs or desires, decisions must be made and actions executed. Do you think that these actions are made without direction or leadership?

    Human nature works because it is based on NATURE, not on ideologies which stem from people's disatisfaction with their place in nature's heirarchy.

  23. #23
    banned
    Reputation: bloviating's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    It is not possible to understand an alien concept by comparing it to previous or existing concepts. Learn to understand an idea or concept for what it is, not what it could/would/might be similar to.

    "There is no culture that exists without some form of hierarchy."

    With all due respect, I sincerely doubt that you are in a position to make such an all-encompassing statement.

    With all due respect I lecture on Cultural Anthropolgy. It is my area of expertise.

  24. #24
    ...idios...
    Reputation: SteveUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,662
    "Are you saying Evil does not exist?"

    I'm saying that 'evil' is a theist explanation of human behaviour.

    "Every culture, from the most isolated to the most globalized has a concept of right and wrong, good and evil."

    'Right and wrong' and 'good and evil' are not the same thing. One is a matter of consience, the other an invention of theism. It is possible to develop a sense of consience without ever needing to resort to the theistic concepts of good and evil.

    "I disagree with it." (Websters definition of anarchy)

    As I am entitled to do so, there's nothing ridiculous about that. Do you intend to begin with character assasination now? I should point out that I'm not seeing this discussion as a competition. I don't care whether or not you agree with me, but please, resorting to character assasination only demonstrates an unwillingness to even consider ideas that contradict your own.

    "I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I'll put it like this. Let's say that you're living in your peaceful little commune and 40 men show up who want to rape and steal your women. What is your anarchist solution?"

    I'll say it again, then;

    There is a difference between not doing something because you are told not to do it and not doing something because you don't want to do it.
    It is also possible for an individual to organise something without being told how to do it.

    It is you who is attempting to understand anarchist theory in terms of ideology, not me.

    We're not even discussing the same thing. You have in your head an idea of what it would mean to have no political authority within your society. That idea is not what anarchism is. Instead of thinking why an idea wouldn't work, try thinking about how it could.

    "Human nature works because it is based on NATURE, not on ideologies which stem from people's disatisfaction with their place in nature's heirarchy."

    You think that somebody sat down and 'came up' with human nature?

    "Oooh, that looks good, what those ants are doing. Right! All of you! Do it like this..."

    Do me a favour...


    "To move beyond a heirarchical organization is not progress."

    Why not? Explain.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,442
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveUK
    ZonkOu,

    Anarchy isn't about not working together; it could almost be the opposite, in fact. You have to try to see it as it's own thing, rather than comparative to any system that you may understand or have experienced.

    The belief that social systems must be hierarchical is perpetrated by people who either are, or wish to be, at the top of one. That an individual authority may exist through experience is undoubtable, but that doesn't necessarily demand that that individual should view theirself as superior, or that those with less experience should see theirself as inferior, which is the state that a hierarchy creates.

    My family background is not what one would call typical, although I did see the politics of the group I spent my early years with. The political system that exists in the UK is one that promotes the 'family' ideas of which you speak, but it does so because it suits the political system, not because it is in any way better for the individual, or even the group that the 'family' consists of.
    'Human nature' is not defined and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is not being truthful.
    Peace,
    Steve
    but by your definition you say that anarchy is the absence of politics. you cannot work together with other people WITHOUT politics. it is the tools used to negotiate and decide what course of action to move the group as a whole towards.

    I am not arguing that societal systems MUSt be hierarchical, I am arguing that it occurs naturally BECAUSE of human nature. In the family example, you take a family from Bangladesh, a family from the middle east, a family from canada, a family from peru, a family from sudan.... it's going to be the same in every instance. A hirearchy will be in place regardless of their culture or societial implications. It's nature and universal.

    You argue that we are gregarious because it suits our purpose and to cooperate procures survival. This is essentially saying that we choose to be gregarious. Do you think wolves, Gorillas, Geese, merecats are gregarious by choice? or is it the way they've evolved naturally?

    Im not saying that we are not capable of evolving into a species in which we are loners, however conditions will have to have changed to drive down the survivability of gregarious humans and increase for nongregarious ones, so that eventually a nongregarious species evolves... but in that case, they're a seperate different species from gregarious man.... and such a change could take 1000's of years to occur, evolution doesnt happen over night, nor is it a choice.
    Last edited by Zonk0u; 02-08-2007 at 01:37 PM.
    "What would happen to the Weather Channel's ratings if people werent scared anymore?"

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •