On a totally unrelated point, I think you may have a very incorrect (but all too common) definition of what anarchy actually is. It is not about extremism or even rebellion. I'm not going to get into it here, but I may start a thread about it just to take you to school. : )
What is Anarchy? (Discussion moved)
- Thread starter Korg
- Start date
On a totally unrelated point, I think you may have a very incorrect (but all too common) definition of what anarchy actually is. It is not about extremism or even rebellion. I'm not going to get into it here, but I may start a thread about it just to take you to school. : )
Feel free, m'man - my impressions of anarchies and anarchists are pretty much equivalent to either V, or small time terrorists with Molotov cocktails. So feel free to put up a thread.
Feel free, m'man - my impressions of anarchies and anarchists are pretty much equivalent to either V, or small time terrorists with Molotov cocktails. So feel free to put up a thread.
I might, time permitting. But for now I will say that if your impression is what you just wrote above, your impression is woefully wrong. But I'll be glad to help you rise above this state of shameful ignorance. : )
You're welcome in advance.
ROFL! You are a shameful, shameful egoist.
Korg, m'man, honestly I really don't care.
I don't agree with your POV, but I'll allow you to express it.
[MENTION=442]arbygil[/MENTION] Korg doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. This is anarchism in a nutshell:
It was invented in an underground lab by William Godwin, a resident of Wikipedia.
1)He thought it would be cool if people didn't always have to be home by 10:30 just 'cause their parents told them to.
2)He also thought it's cool to smoke cigarettes.
3)He also thought people should stitch stuff onto leather jackets with screw-on pyramids.
4)If one of the things you sew onto your leather jacket is a circle with an A in it, that's automatic double coolpoints.
5) You should also write the circle A on your school desk or wherever else unless there's taggers around (they might kick your ass).
I know this because I was in high school when punk was mainstream. That's right. MAINSTREAM.
You're welcome.
It was invented in an underground lab by William Godwin, a resident of Wikipedia.
1)He thought it would be cool if people didn't always have to be home by 10:30 just 'cause their parents told them to.
2)He also thought it's cool to smoke cigarettes.
3)He also thought people should stitch stuff onto leather jackets with screw-on pyramids.
4)If one of the things you sew onto your leather jacket is a circle with an A in it, that's automatic double coolpoints.
5) You should also write the circle A on your school desk or wherever else unless there's taggers around (they might kick your ass).
I know this because I was in high school when punk was mainstream. That's right. MAINSTREAM.
You're welcome.
Anarchy is only possible in a community of people who self regulate their behaviors and share the same ideals.
Here is anarchy working - The Amish.
Here is anarchy failing - Somalia.
When the strong are not predisposed to using their power to help and protect the weak, they will use that power for selfish ends. Without a regulating force (internal or external), power creates tyrants. Without a regulating force (internal or external), people will flip out and operate from base selfish instincts.
Even the well intentioned and self regulating anarchistic communities will not be so idealistic once survival becomes a factor. If the Amish ever start starving, you'll see a break down of their values. And that's another reason why self regulating factors are so important in anarchy. The Amish are successful because they make sure that they have the resources to survive. Something as simple as people being just a little bit lazy can cause the collapse of an anarchistic community.
The problem with the concept of anarchy is the assumption that people are inherently capable of being responsible with absolute freedom. It's easy for an idealist to project these assumptions onto others, but as someone who has seen first hand the ill effects of people with no regulating factors, internal or external, I can assure you that anarchy requires a self regulating force from all participants. Otherwise, you will quickly see what animals people really are.
(I just realized how Enneagram 8 that sounded... Huh.)
Here is anarchy working - The Amish.
Here is anarchy failing - Somalia.
When the strong are not predisposed to using their power to help and protect the weak, they will use that power for selfish ends. Without a regulating force (internal or external), power creates tyrants. Without a regulating force (internal or external), people will flip out and operate from base selfish instincts.
Even the well intentioned and self regulating anarchistic communities will not be so idealistic once survival becomes a factor. If the Amish ever start starving, you'll see a break down of their values. And that's another reason why self regulating factors are so important in anarchy. The Amish are successful because they make sure that they have the resources to survive. Something as simple as people being just a little bit lazy can cause the collapse of an anarchistic community.
The problem with the concept of anarchy is the assumption that people are inherently capable of being responsible with absolute freedom. It's easy for an idealist to project these assumptions onto others, but as someone who has seen first hand the ill effects of people with no regulating factors, internal or external, I can assure you that anarchy requires a self regulating force from all participants. Otherwise, you will quickly see what animals people really are.
(I just realized how Enneagram 8 that sounded... Huh.)
Last edited:
Anarchy?
.....I don't know much, but in my humblest opinion, it needs either:
a) A strong leader, whiiiiich probably will be another leader which will facilitate another anarchy
b) A very, detailed, complex, strong, and definitely similar sense of idealism between members of the group, for what happens next. (Common cause will get you nowhere after 'now', and if not between 'members', then it'll back to point a)
As for my personal opinion?
I don't know, but V for Vendetta is, apparently, an anarchist's wet dream and to me it sounds like, 'dear God, he's a self-aggrandizing douche!'. Soo..
I would say a certain amount of anarchy (under the subset of 'free will' and 'questioning the authority') is beneficial, necessary even. But taken to V's standard.....
Dear God, no. The result will just like Africa, and THERE, hunger is a good common cause. Somewhere else, where people are far better off? When people are full, content, safe, and satisfied; their concerns turns into more complex things. Freedom; what sort of freedom.. Equality; to whom? Relating to what? Moral; whose? Enlightenment? According to what? What?
Not to mention what happen next. And opposition. :|
Which brings me to the above point-- wait, Hmm, circular logic. Anyway;
Even assuming if, SAY, people are kind / generous / moral enough to...not selfishly doing things for their own purposes....it's weird because the question that I often asked about anarchist is, 'what happens next?', not 'what happens now.'
.....I don't know much, but in my humblest opinion, it needs either:
a) A strong leader, whiiiiich probably will be another leader which will facilitate another anarchy
b) A very, detailed, complex, strong, and definitely similar sense of idealism between members of the group, for what happens next. (Common cause will get you nowhere after 'now', and if not between 'members', then it'll back to point a)
As for my personal opinion?
I don't know, but V for Vendetta is, apparently, an anarchist's wet dream and to me it sounds like, 'dear God, he's a self-aggrandizing douche!'. Soo..
I would say a certain amount of anarchy (under the subset of 'free will' and 'questioning the authority') is beneficial, necessary even. But taken to V's standard.....
Dear God, no. The result will just like Africa, and THERE, hunger is a good common cause. Somewhere else, where people are far better off? When people are full, content, safe, and satisfied; their concerns turns into more complex things. Freedom; what sort of freedom.. Equality; to whom? Relating to what? Moral; whose? Enlightenment? According to what? What?
Not to mention what happen next. And opposition. :|
Which brings me to the above point-- wait, Hmm, circular logic. Anyway;
Even assuming if, SAY, people are kind / generous / moral enough to...not selfishly doing things for their own purposes....it's weird because the question that I often asked about anarchist is, 'what happens next?', not 'what happens now.'
i always though of anarchy as the process of overthrowing the current govt; or rather, the time period while the govt or leadership is being overturned.
I always saw anarchy as a lack of a political/government power and figurehead. A world without states, where communities participate in direct democracy, and all major actions (economics and the such) are from the bottom up, with the power lying in the collective workforce and public.
No, that's a coup. It generally involves replacement of the overthrown government with a new government.
Anarchy is a state of having no official form of government with no one ruling over anyone else. (It's highly favored by NFPs who resent expectations being placed upon what they should do or how they should act... and NFJs who assume that everyone has an inherent desire to get along, help each other, and be harmonious. Niether approach tends to take the reality of human nature into consideration.)
There are many ways in which this could be approached, but the end result is that without an external governing system in order for a society to function, it has to have an internal governing system. Otherwise, human nature will break into behaviors that are not self sustaining without government - usually rule of the strong over the weak. While a simple form of government, it is not anarchy. The only way that anarchy can 'work' is when all members agree to make it work, and getting more than a few people to agree on anything long term is next to impossible. Getting an entire community to agree requires a clear anchoring philosophy.
It's better to discuss in detail what society people have in mind, because anarchy is so general, it's almost meaningless. It depends on the definition of power. One could argue that the world lives in anarchy even now, and that the world as a whole is very similar to Somalia actually. Or one could argue that Somalia is very power-oriented, in fact.
The problem with any sort of "power" is that it basically means someone deciding without being able to prove or convince others of the reasons --> if they could, then it would not be really power, it would be common sense, also known as science. It's very much a cognitive issue, and tools like MBTI do help to improve the communication.
Over time, I think people move away from the old "I'm the boss, so we do what I say", to giving reasons, supporting data, shared level of knowledge, so that there's a growing sense of genuine agreement (not manufactured). The path to that begins with improved and accessible education for everyone, and here the Internet becomes helpful.
Funny enough, probably the complete opposite is the classic army (modern army already reforms itself), where you must follow orders without any understanding or justification offered. So, in a way, our society is in a state of war, as long as it still has this ancient mechanism incorporated in its "civil" structure.
The problem with any sort of "power" is that it basically means someone deciding without being able to prove or convince others of the reasons --> if they could, then it would not be really power, it would be common sense, also known as science. It's very much a cognitive issue, and tools like MBTI do help to improve the communication.
Over time, I think people move away from the old "I'm the boss, so we do what I say", to giving reasons, supporting data, shared level of knowledge, so that there's a growing sense of genuine agreement (not manufactured). The path to that begins with improved and accessible education for everyone, and here the Internet becomes helpful.
Funny enough, probably the complete opposite is the classic army (modern army already reforms itself), where you must follow orders without any understanding or justification offered. So, in a way, our society is in a state of war, as long as it still has this ancient mechanism incorporated in its "civil" structure.
Power to change things comes with human nature. What separates anarchy is the belief is that that power rests only in the power of the people, at the most basic level through action and direct democracy, not an institution.
Ah, yeah; what I'm talking is probably power in regards of institution and any resemblance of authority.
Trying to dissolve power is like trying to stop the heat.
However, that seems like a terrible setting for creating a homogenous society?
; Or maybe I'm just not idealistic enough to trust human goodness.