|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:38 am
Having no solid opinions on this myself, I thought I would bring it to the guild forum. With a little research, a general synopsis of the idea can be seen in two ways:
A. Absolute chaos and lack of society, or seeming lack of society as seen in popular thought and media.
B. Responsibile self-government free from public, centralised authority figures, all reasonably developed within communities (or communes) based on the thought that no laws does not mean no responsibility.
Of course, these are only the "black and white" views on the topic matter, and both could be explained further. However, for sake of debate, I'm leaving the floor to the lot of you to debate the following points and your opinions.
1. Opposing all forms of government, if it puts down all opposition to this thought does it not become a form of government in itself?
2. Is it feasable in the U.S. or your respective country?
3. Would it honestly result in lawlessness and mass chaos?
4. If presented in the form of option B, how would you exist in such a place?
5. Concerning the lack of laws in option B, would you take it upon yourself to punish those who did heinous acts such as theft, rape, *****, etcetera?
6. Also concerning option B, how would you think it would affect the modes of production of goods necessary to survival? Would people still work? How would one receive payment? Are we, as a capitalist society in the U.S., too saturated in the thought of material goods equals happiness to live in such a state?
7. Do you think that it could honestly be the answer to our problems concerning racial privilege, sexual preference oppression, sexism, etcetera?
Discuss and debate.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:46 am
Great topic! I really don't know much about Anarchy but I have quite a few friends that do and are active. I'd like to learn more about it before I get too far into a discussion about it. I will say that I hate the way the media and others depict...well everything. They seem to get everything so wrong and bias.
more later...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:12 am
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, for those like me, anarchy really just doesn't work. In theory it might sound good, but that's usually going on the false assumption that people are mainly good. I mean, you see even in the few instances of chaos we have experienced, like the Katrina flood, etc, people will often revert to "looking out for number one" in such situations which does cause utter chaos. Civilization evolved out of sociological necessity. I think what most anarchists are really thinking of are more communism or socialism ideals than actual lawlessness. The end of consumerism and capitalism, which I don't entirely oppose, but even that carries it's own flaws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:44 am
Lexia_Starr Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, for those like me, anarchy really just doesn't work. In theory it might sound good, but that's usually going on the false assumption that people are mainly good. I mean, you see even in the few instances of chaos we have experienced, like the Katrina flood, etc, people will often revert to "looking out for number one" in such situations which does cause utter chaos. Civilization evolved out of sociological necessity. I think what most anarchists are really thinking of are more communism or socialism ideals than actual lawlessness. The end of consumerism and capitalism, which I don't entirely oppose, but even that carries it's own flaws. Obviously the Joker and disappearing pencils are the solution to everything. More SeRiOuslY... Bringing to light Communism as you mention, there is a movement known as "Anarcho-Communism." Its main ideas are to abolish the state, still having no central authority, and live under a sort of Communistic society. I wish we had honest anarchists here to explain these things and how they'd work. They're not my expertise in the least and I've no solid opinions, but I too think they wouldn't work. At first, when you romanticise the idea sure. But after a lot of thought on the effects it would have from everday life to the mechanizations that government and mass production from our consumerism offers, it makes you rethink the idea and tear it down as you should anything else, our consumerism included. I'm with you in not being too opposed to losing our consumerism and capitalistic ways, but I wonder how greatly that in itself would change things. Would it afford more or less opportunities for higher education? Maybe at little to no cost? What of our living conditions? Get better, get worse? Would it allow more room for familial, communal or national cultures to take root? Just things to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:46 am
Exactly. I pretty much agree with everything you said lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:35 am
Just Tony Having no solid opinions on this myself, I thought I would bring it to the guild forum. With a little research, a general synopsis of the idea can be seen in two ways: A. Absolute chaos and lack of society, or seeming lack of society as seen in popular thought and media. B. Responsibile self-government free from public, centralised authority figures, all reasonably developed within communities (or communes) based on the thought that no laws does not mean no responsibility. Of course, these are only the "black and white" views on the topic matter, and both could be explained further. However, for sake of debate, I'm leaving the floor to the lot of you to debate the following points and your opinions. 1. Opposing all forms of government, if it puts down all opposition to this thought does it not become a form of government in itself? 2. Is it feasable in the U.S. or your respective country? 3. Would it honestly result in lawlessness and mass chaos? 4. If presented in the form of option B, how would you exist in such a place? 5. Concerning the lack of laws in option B, would you take it upon yourself to punish those who did heinous acts such as theft, rape, *****, etcetera? 6. Also concerning option B, how would you think it would affect the modes of production of goods necessary to survival? Would people still work? How would one receive payment? Are we, as a capitalist society in the U.S., too saturated in the thought of material goods equals happiness to live in such a state? 7. Do you think that it could honestly be the answer to our problems concerning racial privilege, sexual preference oppression, sexism, etcetera? Discuss and debate. I think this is the best topic here but sadly I am not srong on either side :'(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:52 am
I think that the "ideal" form of government is Communism, however seance people like to do there own thing it doesn't quite work. But back to the Law vs. No-law, The National/Federal Government should basically be there to defend and support us, maybe have a few general laws, while every community has it's own laws that they go by. Basically what we have today but the N/F Gov. needs to step back a little and let us do what we do, but still help us in a time of crisis, ex. a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:27 pm
Quote: 1. Opposing all forms of government, if it puts down all opposition to this thought does it not become a form of government in itself? You would be governing yourself, and attempting to govern those around you for your own safety and well-being. At that point yes, it does become a form of government. Quote: 2. Is it feasable in the U.S. or your respective country? It is not feasible. Quote: 3. Would it honestly result in lawlessness and mass chaos? Most definatly, which would then result in people coming together and forming a government for control. Quote: 4. If presented in the form of option B, how would you exist in such a place? I would be dead. Quote: 5. Concerning the lack of laws in option B, would you take it upon yourself to punish those who did heinous acts such as theft, rape, *****, etcetera? Most definatly. Quote: 6. Also concerning option B, how would you think it would affect the modes of production of goods necessary to survival? Would people still work? How would one receive payment? Are we, as a capitalist society in the U.S., too saturated in the thought of material goods equals happiness to live in such a state? If we were to switch to anarchy today, I believe that the majority would still work. We have never learned to be independent because there was no need to be. I don't believe that we are 'too saturated' with the thought of material goods equaling happiness, because they do make you happy. I'm definatly going to be happier if I live in a nice place, own a car, etc. than someone who is living in a shack, has to walk 20 miles to work, and struggling to get by. Quote: 7. Do you think that it could honestly be the answer to our problems concerning racial privilege, sexual preference oppression, sexism, etcetera? No. Even with our form of government people still have their own opinions. If there are no governing laws or threat of certain definate punishment then they can act freely to do what they wish. People still kill others because of their sexual preference, race, etc. I think that the government system that we currently have is about as good as it's going to get. Sure, there will always be people that disagree wtith certain laws and such, but as a person I think that greater good for the greater number is the best way to go. Quote: A good example that I have to throw into this is this past semester. Basically we had to make a full-blown company and sell a product for the duration of a semester. We didn't get any direction; we just got thrown in and told to make something and sell it. Our first company meetings were absolute chaos (keep in mind that this was only with 25 people) because there was no direction. No one in charge, no rules...nothing. Everyone wanted to do their own thing and wouldn't listen to anyone else. We all chose to set up a heirachy, and we all voted on it. Everyone also voted on major decisions (just as we do now). We also made departments with people who knew more than others about certain topics, and we trusted them to make decisions for us concerning their department. If the majority would up not liking those decisions we were able to overthrow them and vote on another plan of action. This is much like a mini goverment. Overall, I feel that the main problem with anarchy is that people do not have the same ethics. This can be shown in the world today just with the number of people in prison, as well as the corporate crimes that are going on. Those court shows on TV wouldn't be so big if people didn't think that someone else wronged them. There are many other ways to see that anarchy would not work just by analyzing our own society, these are just a few examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:48 pm
Madness is just like Gravity
Mmmm. Anarchy! :3
I adore the concept and idealology of Anarchy! Absolute freedom, the cage that all humans are born into completly obliterated! Ah my precious Anarchy, how beautiful!
Anarchy is completly possible. It's just that in order for Anarchy to work people need to be thorougly moral, and unfortunatly humans are easily corrupred and power hungry by nature. Without a pure heart and complete indifference towards power, people cannot dictate themselves without law. In the end they would try to better themselves and their positoin, which would lead to controlling others, thus restablishing government.
So though I support Anarchy, and Anarchy is possilbe, humanity needs to shape up before it can be initiated. That is what seems impossible.
The theory of Entropy, all things are attempting to revert back into chaos. We need to fix ourselves in order to gain this ultimate freedom that every human innately deserves.
 All it takes is a Little Push
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:43 pm
What I want to know, how do anarchist groups live with themselves? They meet and have order to promote disorder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:46 pm
I say it's a grand idea. On paper. Lots of things look good on paper. Stalin's 5-year plans looked good on paper. No Child Left Behind looked good in principle. If we're judging it based on the ability of the idea, then Anarchy would be a fine way to live. Except that the fact that I like to have order and would be associating and forming mini-government with my neighbors and friends would serve to mostly undo the idea of Anarchy.
The problem is not that I don't trust myself with the freedom that Anarchy would provide. It's that I don't trust the people who live down the road. Give everyone a penny and set them in a room together for an hour, and not everyone will have a penny at the end. People will steal other people's stuff, their physical belongings, their well-being, and their lives. Doubt me? Watch the local news tonight.
Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics... everything is perpetually falling apart. Nothing is made without an outside force acting on it. Anarchy is completely possible. But there's a reason why it (a) will not happen and (b) probably shouldn't happen. If you want anarchy, I think that existing outside of the boundaries of a country would serve you well. Personally, I think that with or without government, people will be posturing to be 'king of the hill' for the moment, to get attention, to get what they want. Take away the government, and you're only taking away a deterrent to that action. On paper, with perfect people and unlimited resources and all the hypotheticals dealt with, I'd support Anarchy. Idealism aside, people aren't going to change, and putting hope into something that requires a change like that seems... shortsighted. That's just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:32 am
I'm interested in hearing Fem-inja's ideas on how anarchy could and should be brought about, her propositions towards others to make it more accepted and even bring it to fruition, and of course, how she believes an anarchist society would work full well within all limits from means of productions to day to day life and familial teachings. How drastically would things change?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:16 am
Madness is just like Gravity
Thank you Tony, I am glad to hear that you are interested in my ideas. But before I can answer any of those questions, I need to give an explination of what I mean when I say Anarchy.
Anarchy is meerly a full and final establishment of the freedom that we all deserve. Humanity is born in to a cage of laws and expectations, they are just unaware of it because they spend their whole lives in this cage. Thustly the cage becomes our entre biospehre, we live ignorant of the fact that we are taking up a small isolated segment of a much bigger world. Take for example a hampster, except imagine that the hampster cannot see outside the cage. They beleive they have freedom, can they not move about as they will? Can they not deciede when they want to run in their little hampster wheels? Is that not freedom?
Well yes, technically it is freedom, but it is not true freedom.
If that cage door were to swing open what would the hampster do? Well it would probably stand there in shock and fear for awhile, hearing nothing but the wind outside. Bur, sure enough in a few moments it will timidly step out, sniffing the air nervously, and embark into this strange unfamiliar world.
Why? They have everything they need in the cage. They are provided with food and drink, they have a safe bed to sleep in, toliet paper tubes to play in, why would they possibly feel any desire to leave? That is the basis of Anarchy, humanity yearning for true freedom. Something that cannot just be subsituted by happiness. After all, happiness is the greatest cage of all.
True Anarchy, in it's purest form, is nothing but each individual taking responsibility for his/her own self and actions. And if they have truly stepped out of that cage then they will have no desire to do harm or create chaos. Violence, hatred, crime, those are all cages that must be opened as well.
At the moment Anarchy is impossible, but it is not because the idea itself is faulty, it is because we are. We are too afraid, to comfortable in our little cages. We are too happy with our nice luxurious jobs that let us buy things that we don't need. In order for Anarchy to work, we need to fix ourselves.
I'll awnser your questions later, I need to go to church now. Thank you for your time.
All it takes is a Little Push
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:43 pm
Good. I'm still expecting those answers. I hope to hear them soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:14 pm
I'm also pretty frustrated with the way the media depicts anarchy. Hooliganism and anarchy are not the same thing. I've been bordering a lot lately towards anarchy and libertarianism. Granted, true anarchy might result in chaos but I'm so tired of the lies and exploitation the governments and corporations are jailing us with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
