anarchy is stupid. who agrees?

[dahermit]

This is exactly why I asked the OP to define anarchy, it can be used more than one way. If a group of women live in a barracks they will eventually all ovulate at the same approximate time. The dominant female will be the one who sets the standard through a process we have not yet identified. Is that a form of government? Dominant mares in a horse herd constitute a government? Many indigenous people's used consensus, is that considered government? One can find hierarchies in almost all groups of animals, I'm not sure if that can be considered government or not. I have yet to see a definition of what we're discussing.

By my definition of anarchy:1) Women- not because they will ovulate at the same time, but because the "dominate woman"by definition, will have social influence/control the others will not have.
2) Horses- They have a "pecking order" therefore are not free to do what they want. They are being governed.
3) Tribe- Consensus is equivalent to a town meeting; town meetings are the basis for township government in New England.

Again, this is only by my definition.

Nevertheless, what the original poster did not say, but should have, is: If anarchy is so bad, what form of government is better. To which I would have answered: All forms of governments become more corrupt and become less beneficial to the people, the bigger and more complicated they get. In fact, they can become harmful to the people. For instance, in New Orleans during Katrina the police stopped a group of black citizens from fleeing the city and entering an area of the city that was not predominately black, supposedly to prevent looting (better to have them drown than have looting?).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

By my definition of anarchy:1) Women- not because they will ovulate at the same time, but because the "dominate woman"by definition, will have social influence/control the others will not have.
2) Horses- They have a "pecking order" therefore are not free to do what they want. They are being governed.
3) Tribe- Consensus is equivalent to a town meeting; town meetings are the basis for township government in New England.

Again, this is only by my definition.

Nevertheless, what the original poster did not say, but should have, is: If anarchy is so bad, what form of government is better. To which I would have answered: All forms of governments become more corrupt and become less beneficial to the people, the bigger and more complicated they get. In fact, they can become harmful to the people. For instance, in New Orleans during Katrina the police stopped a group of black citizens from fleeing the city and entering an area of the city that was not predominately black, supposedly to prevent looting (better to have them drown than have looting?).

So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition. Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect.

 

[SavageDreamer]

Anarchy can exist ounce u get the 6 billion people of the world to be respectful and responsible.

Anarchy means u have to have everyone self govern and work together without the need for a central organizing body.

Possible in an agrarian society but I don't see it happening in a world of 6 billion chaotic irresponsible greedy and selfish people.

Even the call for anarchy is one made from a selfish perspective

 

[9sublime]

Can I throw out a kind of case study here?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/belgium-approaches-150-days-without-government-399008.html

In a world with so much communication with the internet, the centralised government is kind of proved to be unneccessary here. While Belgium obviously still had government, it didn't have it in the traditional sense because it had nobody at the helm.

 

[dahermit]

So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition. Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect.

"...So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically..." Never said that. The only anarchy I know of is one person alone an an island... Have you confused my post with Arbitor's?

"So anarchy for you is total survival, if you can do something, then it is right. Might is Right basically. That won't work, it doesn't exist in Nature in any instance I'm aware of from scientific study. There is far more cooperation in Nature than competition." All troops of baboons, monkeys, (less with banobos) have an authoritarian structure that I described, not based on cooperation but intimidation by the dominant male and other high ranking males.

"...Anarchy as you define it does not exist and probably cannot exist because organization exists even down to the smallest particles we can define. There is an implicate and explicate order that seems to pervade the whole Universe and trying to make a society or a portion of the Universe totally without organization is an impossibility, I suspect..." I agree...with the higher evolved life forms anyway. Any group of people that tried to live in a live-and-let-live state would soon become pray for predatory people

 

[Octavius]

wouldn't true anarchy be technically impossible? i mean if you have no form of government at all, then you have people running around doing whatever they want and "mass murder would occur" but, that in itself would be your form of government...right? just like the way zero has no value, but it is still a number, anarchy is still a form of government, and so anarchy contradicts itself is what i get out of it

 

[Bunz]

This is quite an old thread, but there is certainly no reason it cant be reborn.

wouldn't true anarchy be technically impossible? i mean if you have no form of government at all, then you have people running around doing whatever they want and "mass murder would occur" but, that in itself would be your form of government...right? just like the way zero has no value, but it is still a number, anarchy is still a form of government, and so anarchy contradicts itself is what i get out of it

Its more complicated than that. There are various definitions of Anarchy.
It is unwise to limit ones view of anarchy to that of a situation of non-government that results in chaos.
Here is the wiki on anarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]

"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
Without government or law

A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).

I think those that advocate the most for anarchy fall into the last three of the category. Where humans can co-exist without the presence of a structured government that allows a maximization of personal freedom.

But yes, in a way, anarchy is in itself, an oxymoron.

 

[numinus]

Anarchy is stupid because it seeks to destroy the political association when it is itself, a kind of political association.

A state of 'absolute liberty' implies disorder since one's absolute liberty will NECESSARILY collide with another's absolute liberty hence depicting the state of nature inhabited by animals.

And there is no association, even in the state of nature, even among animals, where coersion is absent.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

One word describes anarchists: selfish.

 

[dahermit]

One word describes anarchists: selfish.

Please feel free to elaborate. Or, perhaps you think what you said is so profound it should be on a bumper sticker.

 

[dahermit]

And there is no association, even in the state of nature, even among animals, where coersion is absent.

Having observed the social structure of many different animals, I cannot disagree. There is always a hierarchy, there is always coercion.
The only instance of anarchy I can envision is a single person living in the wilderness as on an otherwise unpopulated island. With two persons, there could be cooperation, or consensus, but just as likely, conflict...no longer anarchy.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Please feel free to elaborate. Or, perhaps you think what you said is so profound it should be on a bumper sticker.

Well, they are selfish because they want to be able to bash someones head with a hammer without having to answer for it. They want to start an endless cycle of murder and hatred that could not be reversed. Wich is why I oppose anarchy.

 

[dahermit]

Well, they are selfish because they want to be able to bash someones head with a hammer without having to answer for it. They want to start an endless cycle of murder and hatred that could not be reversed. Wich is why I oppose anarchy.

I do not believe that is what the anarchy movement was about. It was about living without rules imposed by governments, not violence. Nevertheless, it was a naive and wistful concept that is not likely to succeed given human nature. Is that what you meant to say by "stupid"? Also, what anarchist movement is still in existence that you oppose?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I do not believe that is what the anarchy movement was about. It was about living without rules imposed by governments, not violence. Nevertheless, it was a naive and wistful concept that is not likely to succeed given human nature. Is that what you meant to say by "stupid"? Also, what anarchist movement is still in existence that you oppose?

I never used the word stupid, that was the guy who created this thread. An anarchist "movement" is impossible, because a movement requires organization, and that is what Anarchy opposes.

 

[palerider]

If you lived alone on a tropical island you would chose anarchy(no government) would you not? If you lived with another person on a tropical island what form of government would you chose? How many people do you need before you would have to chose a government? Could a "town meeting" where everyone is equal suffice for a government?

Even if you were on an island with only one other person, both could not be equal and with no governing authority, the rights of each would not be equally protected. A town full of "equals" is a fantasy.