|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:08 pm
Being the establishment of independent 'city-states' or local collectives, with no extra power granted to anyone without due cause. People would be free to do as they please, so long as it did not infringe on their personal rights of others. The dissolution of the federal government under the idea that a huge national state cannot possibly care effectively for the needs of the people.
Discuss, debate.
Pros and cons of anarchism?
What would be required in an anarchist society to make it work?
Which form of anarchism would be better? (Ex. anarcho-communism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.)
Would the abolishment of private property be beneficial?
How to conduct court-like procedures in such a society?
How to guard against the few rogue groups of individuals who would seek to exploit others?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:52 pm
Anarchism? A rather interesting topic for debate may I say. Let's get down to your questions.
Pros and Cons: Well, for one the lack of rule would open up a world of unlimited possibilities. However, the lack of such rules would surely bring disaster. Humans cannot exist without them, as history has proved us. Take away the rules and we degrade and become animal-like in our behavior.
What would be required for an anarchist society to exist?: A new type of human. One that is honest, reasonable, sharing, kind. One that is free of all the evils that plague our society, pretty much.
Form: Well, considering that anarchism would not work, most likely I'd say none. If I had to choose out of your list, I'd say communism.
Private Property: If a man has nothing of his own, a man then has no reason to live, don't you agree? Without private property, everything a man tries to do is meaningless because it will amount to nothing. However, with the abolishment of private property, a man will be truly free for once.
Court-like: They wouldn't be possible because to conduct such proceedings would be to grant power to someone over someone else, something which goes against the core idea of anarchism. In effect, it would create a government like state if attempted, even in a direct democracy type of setting.
Guard: There is only one way, honestly. Force. Whether it be lethal or not it must be present. Without it, the rogue groups will succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:28 pm
I disagree with the idea that humans are inherently 'bad' or unruly. Societal pressures and recognition of the value of coexisting would, I believe, be sufficient in most cases. In considering the people I know, most would not seek to harm, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who says that we would revert to savage behavior.
The only circumstance when there is a danger of people degrading to animal-like behavior is, in my opinion, in times of great crisis. Famine, drought, war, and the like.
I also disagree on your first statement concerning private property. In my humble opinion, property has perhaps the least relevance to there being a reason to live. All the reasons I choose to go on living have nothing to do with private property. I feel that so long as I can live in relative comfort, with enough to eat and drink and decent company, then I can and will be just as happy as I am now, no matter how much else I 'own'.
With private property, there is still the same lack of meaning in everything a man does. It will all amount to nothing in the end. And yet, meaning can be found in what seem to be the most unimportant things. Things entirely unconnected to property.
Freedom is the ultimate aim of anarchy, and sans private property, there is freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:55 pm
It's not that humans are inherently bad, oh no. That's not what I am saying. It's more along the lines of survival. If you take an evolutionary standpoint, humans are an evolved machine built to survive by any means. We can eat anything, we can adapt to anything. Our responses, our behaviors and so on are all geared toward survival.
I believe that if we're put into a situation where no authority is present, many (keyword "many") will attempt to gain authority as a means through survival. People will sacrifice anything for survival, even life itself. Think of it.
As for personal property, I have no need of it either. If I could live in a shack and would have to share my food and shelter, I'd have no problem. But you can't generalize that all people will do that. Most people, at least of our current mindset will do quite the opposite. If anarchy comes into this world, into our current society it will become chaos for I do not believe we are ready for it.
An old Russian saying on this topic. "Мой дом, моя крепость." (My house is my castle.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:10 pm
Unfortunately, though humans are naturally neutral, we tend to take "the dark side"--greed, hunger, pride, etc.--when there isn't a clear and present authority figure. Not only wouldn't we be able to convert to anarchism, we haven't been able to. Example: The Native Americans that the Europeans found. They didn't have a "federal government," though they did have a form of a village gov't (chiefs and tribes and such), and the Europeans considered them savages--mainly because they were, at least partly, savage. Now, which race would you consider superior--the anarchist American Indians or the kingdom of Great Britain?
The problem with anarchy is that nothing can progress unless everyone agrees to respect each other, which tends to only be able to happen when there's a large government in place. The Europeans had better technology because they had government. The Americans were without government and with inferior technology. So, without government, there would be no such thing as the Internet, or the eventual phasers or whatever else we'll need to combat the Romulans when they come and commandeer our world. (Yes, the truth's come out-- JoSlifer's a Trekkie! lol)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
