Are You a Candidate for Anarchism?

[amorphous_constellation]

To derail totally yet highly relevant:
Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development | Simply Psychology

I read it. I guess I use the 2nd category a lot, but am aware that I do that, because that's mainly the mindset I have to have to function in a work environment. I can see beyond it. But making my own rules would not serve me where I need to follow rules. If I didn't have to work, then I would probably live radically different to how I am now, taking much greater control of life

 

[an anarchist]

Sorry @mikkel_the_dane that I haven’t responded to your previous post. Little burnt out at the moment I will pick this debate back up at a later date

 

[Truth in love]

Well are you?

What is anarchism?

How would it "work"?

Could it "work"?

If a magic wand was waved now and there was anarchy globally, could humanity adjust and retain anarchy?

And other questions.

Anarchy never last long. Even less then bright people know that a gang of people who think somewhat alike will out last a lot of individuals. Groups always need rules pretty quickly and we have some form of government. It might be very simplistic, but people want their stuff left alone. People have others they care about who they want left alone.

So unless society ends and we only have random lone survivors, anarchy will not last long.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I'm not an expert on theory, but I have a major disdain for unethical hierarchies.

 

[an anarchist]

No, because you have no mechanism that guards against a cartel in the end. The control function you assume rests on self-interest in making money, but that can be bought with money.

Your idea is noble. We should all act to the benefit of us all by acting in our own interest. It will not work, because humans don't function that way in practice. If it was the case, we would already be there, because then nobody would act against the benefit of us, but that is not how evolution works in humans.

Hi. Not sure if I’m really gonna answer the questions you raised with your replies, but here goes.
So, after some thought, I think we have to agree to disagree
I believe in the free market and it’s regulating power. Most people do not. I’ll leave you with a 5 minute clip of a lecture by Murray Rothbard (founder of anarcho capitalism). He discusses Cartels in a free market. He goes over the post civil war America, which was a rather free market. He talks about the business cartels that were formed. Worth the five minutes I think, but I’ll let you be the judge of that.

I misplaced my book lol! Gotta rebuy it.
Doesn’t government regulation allow for cartels to be formed?
Corporations give politicians money for a reason, right? It is so they can use the arm of the government for their own selfish interests.
you say there is not regulating mechanism to protect the people in ancapistan. I ask that you evaluate the government regulating mechanisms and ask if it is in the interest of the people or for large companies. Government will of course say it’s for consumer safety. Ancaps say the free market would be better for consumers all around, as it is self regulating. When we look at government armies, do they act in the interest of people? They can. But often times, a government (Like the GOOD OL’ USA) will use their armies against weaker countries for resource acquisition. Who protects those people from government armies? The concerns you raise are already happening in the system of government.
Minimum wage alone is an extremely effective government system. Effective in helping large corporations beat out new competitors.
Side bar, since I’m on the topic. Minimum wage in the US of A was created to keep “undesirables” (colored folk, for example) out of the work force. This is documented and well researched. Allow me to quote president Woodrow Wilson’s commissioner of Labor.
"It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law, even if it deprives these unfortunates of work. Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind."
source: Review on JSTOR
Well, I guess the point is I see the government as an elitist group of eugenicists. This is well documented. Eugenics used to be openly accepted among the politicians and like people until the Nazis ruined it’s reputation.
Just, I ask you to be as skeptical of government as you are ancapistan. Ancapistan is all theory, but with government, there are examples of government unfairly supporting certain businesses over others. Among other things.
Government allows for the creation of monopolies and cartels, in my opinion.
We are not there in Ancapistan yet not because it is impossible, but rather, there are too many sociopaths in political positions, who’s aim it is to control the general population. But that’s just my opinion after going down the rabbit hole.
Ok that’s all

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To me as a former anarchist, it is an ideal to take into account, but it is not practical other in some adapted "lite" version.

A Dane anarchist?

You didn't live in Freetown Christiania did you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm an anarchist ever since I read Proudhon and Godwin in (our equivalent of) high school.

Proudhon impacted on me to a degree too. Although I was at uni. My high school was pretty...well...rough. Carrying around anything more intellectual than a football was likely to get you beaten up.

I think anarchy can work if the majority of citizens are anarchists. That's why neither the "magic wand" nor a revolution can work. Only when most people react like @Revoltingest "If elected, I will not serve!" and of course "If you are elected, I will not serve you."

I think that speaks to the transfer of political system rather than the long term viability. But in terms of the initial shift in system, I think you'd have to have enough people to create a seed community and grow from there. I doubt you could get an existing nation (for example) to shift systems in any holistic sense.

A major problem for anarchism is, as @Brickjectivity eluded to, children who do not thrive under anarchism. They need some authority, at least until they can understand anarchism and learn to love it.

Interesting there...
My background is education, and I always assumed anarchy would look somewhat like Montesori, which works fine, but is probably more structured than what you're alluding to.

So I was wondering on whether you mean how the education 'system' would look (notwithstanding that's it's probably more of a co-op) or if you just meant kids generally.

I think the natural form of anarchism will be anarcho-syndicalism not anarcho-capitalism which @Xavier Graham favours. I wouldn't want to exchange one authority (the state) for another (the boss). I don't like to be commanded - and I don't like to command.

Kinda Chomsky-ish?

 

[Heyo]

I think that speaks to the transfer of political system rather than the long term viability. But in terms of the initial shift in system, I think you'd have to have enough people to create a seed community and grow from there. I doubt you could get an existing nation (for example) to shift systems in any holistic sense.

I see anarchism as an evolved form of democracy. Take any democratic country and make it more democratic and less oppressive and you'll get to anarchism eventually. The crux is that people are pretty much conservative and content with democracy.

Interesting there...
My background is education, and I always assumed anarchy would look somewhat like Montesori, which works fine, but is probably more structured than what you're alluding to.

So I was wondering on whether you mean how the education 'system' would look (notwithstanding that's it's probably more of a co-op) or if you just meant kids generally.

I meant kids in general. You can't reason with a five-year-old like you would with an adult. A five-year-old is not independent like an adult. Being dependent is antithetical to anarchism. I.e. children would have to be a class that doesn't enjoy the same rights as adults as it would be dangerous to them and others.

Kinda Chomsky-ish?

I've never figured out Chomsky's political stance. Sometimes he's pretty anti authoritarian but sometimes he's also very much socialist. But his Wikipedia page says he's an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist, so, yes, kinda Chomsky-ish.