The Problem With Anarchy

[simple simon]

seems when there is a discussion with people about government ... someone always has to throw anarchy into the mix as the solution

it always makes me scratch my head .... do they just not understand ?

seems the ones that bring it up are always the weakest (physically mostly) .. do they not know the definition of the word they use ?

a society without laws or government ....... im thinking if i dont have a car i kill you and take yours ..... am i missing something ?

[gela]

Anarchy means that there is no ruler

It doesn't mean that there can't be rules - they just have to be decided by the people.

[simple simon]

Quote by: gela Anarchy means that there is no ruler It doesn't mean that there can't be rules - they just have to be decided by the people.

i know exactly what anarchy means

1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. 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. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. anarchy - Definitions from Dictionary.com

yeah you may think #3 applies ...... but it's a fantasy .... when the hungry want food they will take it if they have to

[gela]

Not that I support anarchy, but it relies on morals.
It probly assumes that if there are hungry people, food will be given to them by those who have food to spare.
I think it would work if we all lived in little towns; but its not an option for large cities.

"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] It should be noted that "ruler", if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term "rules". In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority). Wikipedia

(yes, I do realise that wikipedia is less reliable then dictionary.com; but it is gives a much broader definition, and refers to past Anarchies, so in this case, I believe it.

[ZNFYRH]

Autolykos is the best person to talk to about this... maybe.

Personally, there is a difference between "anarchy" and "anarchism."

[Cephus]

Quote by: gela Not that I support anarchy, but it relies on morals. It probly assumes that if there are hungry people, food will be given to them by those who have food to spare.

Which we already know doesn't work, even in the non-anarchy world we live in. People, by nature, want to get ahead, they want to be paid for their efforts and it wouldn't be long before the freeloaders would be run out of town on a rail. The reality is, these anarchists really don't have a clue what they'd be in for. If there is no government, then how can there be any form of agreed-upon currency? You'd be back to barter and if you needed a plumber, but the plumber didn't want the kumquats you were growing, you couldn't get his services. Anarchists think this is all going to magically work out but the reality is, once you have a need for currency, you need a government strong enough to back it up and insure that it has a consistent worth.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus Which we already know doesn't work, even in the non-anarchy world we live in. People, by nature, want to get ahead, they want to be paid for their efforts and it wouldn't be long before the freeloaders would be run out of town on a rail.

The "world we live in" is certainly not a perfect example of anarchism. But notice how that's a critique of the status quo, not basic anarchic principles.

I'll give a modest example of why anarchists feel the way they do. Look at the RIAA. Sales have decreased long before before MP3s. Why? Because they rip people off. They are like thieves, robbing both from the artist and the consumer. Music-lovers know this. But any perceived threat to them, such as filesharing (a relatively innocent practice), they use as license to sue people and push for "anti-piracy" legislation. If they have their way, the FBI will certainly be in on the act, which grows police state tendencies and paves the way for further regulation.

I fail to see why this is desirable in any way, except as a means for profitable industry to attain more and more power over the public, including determining how we can listen to music. This is a system of organized theft, threats and violence, intended to make us subordinate and dependent on an elite class of regulators. Even this modets example illustrates this, and indicates rather clearly why anarchism makes sense. It makes sense for high-tech society as well as low-tech. It just makes sense.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa The "world we live in" is certainly not a perfect example of anarchism. But notice how that's a critique of the status quo, not basic anarchic principles. I'll give a modest example of why anarchists feel the way they do. Look at the RIAA. Sales have decreased long before before MP3s. Why? Because they rip people off. They are like thieves, robbing both from the artist and the consumer. Music-lovers know this. But any perceived threat to them, such as filesharing (a relatively innocent practice), they use as license to sue people and push for "anti-piracy" legislation. If they have their way, the FBI will certainly be in on the act, which grows police state tendencies and paves the way for further regulation. I fail to see why this is desirable in any way, except as a means for profitable industry to attain more and more power over the public, including determining how we can listen to music. This is a system of organized theft, threats and violence, intended to make us subordinate and dependent on an elite class of regulators. Even this modets example illustrates this, and indicates rather clearly why anarchism makes sense. It makes sense for high-tech society as well as low-tech. It just makes sense. Grandpa h.

To me, it seems to boil down to the fact that you don't like(and/or don't have) money and don't want anyone else to have any as well....so, you accuse everyone else that has or is making money of either being theives, bullies, or having a tyrannical quest for world domination...

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval To me, it seems to boil down to the fact that you don't like(and/or don't have) money and don't want anyone else to have any as well.... so, you accuse everyone else that has or is making money of either being theives, bullies, or having a tyrannical quest for world domination...

Your first point is just an attack, and a simplistic one at that. My having or not having money is irrelevant, nor am I jealous of the RIAA (I actually view it as a despicable organization).

As for the serious discussion:
There is a crucial difference between merely possessing money and having intent. You've arrived at the conclusion that the RIAA's intent to maximize profit has no harmful effects, that it's purely benign.
But I do consider the RIAA tyrannical for the reasons mentioned, and they certainly do intend some form of domination.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: gela Anarchy means that there is no ruler It doesn't mean that there can't be rules - they just have to be decided by the people.

Who enforces the rules then? Who states that the people state the rules. Anarchy means chaos and no government.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Your first point is just an attack, and a simplistic one at that. My having or not having money is irrelevant,

Where's the attack? Stating that you don't like (and possibly don't have) money is my opinion of your statements, not an attack against you.

Quote by: grandpa nor am I jealous of the RIAA (I actually view it as a despicable organization).

I think you might very well be jealous of what they have..they own large quantities of money making material and aren't being hindered by the eeeeevil business world..
And, of course you think their dispicable...again, because they are making money off supposedly "relatively innocent practice"s of people stealing and sharing copyrighted music. There's nothing dispicable about that. The bottom line is they're making money off of their products and other's aren't.

Quote by: grandpa As for the serious discussion: There is a crucial difference between merely possessing money and having intent.

intent to possess money??

Quote by: grandpa You've arrived at the conclusion that the RIAA's intent to maximize profit has no harmful effects, that it's purely benign.

People break the law by sharing copyrighted music. They are trying to recoup money lost by this process. Some of their means of gathering information are questionable(i'll give you that), but their over all goal is sound. If I owned the copyright on material and people were abusing it, you're damn right I'd sue.

Quote by: grandpa But I do consider the RIAA tyrannical for the reasons mentioned, and they certainly do intend some form of domination. Grandpa h.

Such as? What kind of domination are they after? World domination by music!! That's it!

[another day]

simply put, anarchy is idealistic and impractical.

the only way it can work is in a small commune of select people, and even then, problems will begin to arise, and you will find the society begin to become more and more regulated as people realize that's just how it works in life.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Dieval To me, it seems to boil down to the fact that you don't like(and/or don't have) money and don't want anyone else to have any as well....so, you accuse everyone else that has or is making money of either being theives, bullies, or having a tyrannical quest for world domination...

Usually not the case. Often times these are just very liberal people who have made a choice to avoid working, and instead chose to live off the land. It is happening all over the world, latin america, israel, america, everyone has anarchist communities that are not property driven, obviously there is no currency, they grow their own foods and use the discarded resources of their more wasteful neighbors (dumpster diving).
They don't accuse everyone of a tyrannical quest, they believe in the goodness of others more than you do, rest assured. They do believe we live in a consumer waste society, which is obviously true. And while I myself might not be living in the trees and joining them, i appreciate that they're doing, being conservationists.
They really aren't these molotov cocktail throwing people anymore, theyre more like hippies.

now, back to anarchy the economic theory, of course it couldn't work as a derivative of a consumer society, even marx admits that communism required capitalism, and likewise anarchy requires a few more baby steps in between before a society could acclimate BACK to living this way. And yes, I mean back, because original man was an anarchist. We would have to prepare society to handle the transition, we'd all have to prepare to grow our own foods, and build our own supplies, with the help of only our neighbors. But, people are capable of doing this,the proof is in the pudding, people ARE doing this in isolated places all around the world and living what they would consider a very rewarding and happy life.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: another day simply put, anarchy is idealistic and impractical. the only way it can work is in a small commune of select people, and even then, problems will begin to arise, and you will find the society begin to become more and more regulated as people realize that's just how it works in life.

the later part is not really the case
the problem is youre imaging the anarchist utopia as looking and functioning similarly as our capitalist society. but, there wont be indoor plumbing or oil refineries, science will be reverted back for the average person. It would just make us all tribesmen again, you know? Not that bad, but hardly glamourous either.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Suburbanite the problem is youre imaging the anarchist utopia as looking and functioning similarly as our capitalist society. but, there wont be indoor plumbing or oil refineries, science will be reverted back for the average person. It would just make us all tribesmen again, you know? Not that bad, but hardly glamourous either.

I don't see why that has to be the case either.
Advances in science and technology could also lead to a more independent individual.
The problem i see with all the posts so far is an assumption that an anarchist society is achievable within our lifetimes with the present day social problems and inadequate technology.

Society is in a state of evolution. it must be otherwise with no change it will stagnate and die. And like evolution in animals, society cannot miraculously jump from one stage to another, it has to make small incremental changes to succeed.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: GHook93 Who enforces the rules then? Who states that the people state the rules. Anarchy means chaos and no government.

3. 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.

I assume #3 means gangs and/or mobsters just like in the projects of Chicago.

[Zeebadee]

You really want to see anarchy in action?? Tell me where you live, and promise not to call the cops. I'll give you a first-hand experience of an anarchistic society.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Zeebadee You really want to see anarchy in action?? Tell me where you live, and promise not to call the cops. I'll give you a first-hand experience of an anarchistic society.

you really need to learn the difference between anarchy and anarchism.
there's a big difference between acting like a thug and being socially responsible for your own actions. think self government, not no government

[Cephus]

Quote by: SoylentGreen there's a big difference between acting like a thug and being socially responsible for your own actions. think self government, not no government

But without authority, who is going to make you be socially responsible? People naturally do what they can get away with, if you think your average person is going to be socially responsible without being forced into it, you're dreaming. People will not act that way and it's a complete fantasy to think otherwise.

[gela]

But without authority, who is going to make you be socially responsible? People naturally do what they can get away with, if you think your average person is going to be socially responsible without being forced into it, you're dreaming. People will not act that way and it's a complete fantasy to think otherwise.

I disagree.. to an extent.
I believe that todays society wouldn't be socialy responsible, because of their own will and ethics.
However, I think it has the potential to work. I happen to have a bit of faith in humanity; and I think that if it were ingrained into a culture, then everyone would be socialy responsible and ethical.
I think it would only work with a relativily small population; but I think it is a possibility.