Democracy

[syo]

Anarchy means absence or rule of law.

Everyone can do what ever they want, you defend your self however you can and survive how ever you know, the law of the Jungle rules anarchy.

Jungle works like a clock. Animals are happy in mother nature, outside of zoos.

 

[Heyo]

Anarchy means absence or rule of law.

Anarchy means absence of a ruler, not absence of law.
Anarchism is a political system based on the absence of central rulership.

 

[paradox]

Anarchy means absence of a ruler, not absence of law.
Anarchism is a political system based on the absence of central rulership.

Anarchy is a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body

Anarchy - Wikipedia

Therefore if there is no governing body or authority who is going to enforce law?

 

[Heyo]

Anarchy - Wikipedia

Therefore is there is no governing body or authority who is going to enforce law?

That's the idea.
I see anarchism as the ideal form of (non-) government. The problem is that you need a high number of anarchists for an anarchistic society. You only need 51% democrats for a democracy and just a handful of bullies for a dictatorship.
I don't see anarchism functioning in any country now with people who don't know anarchism or reject it. But it may become an option in the future, assuming that democracies become even more democratic.

 

[paradox]

That's the idea.
I see anarchism as the ideal form of (non-) government. The problem is that you need a high number of anarchists for an anarchistic society. You only need 51% democrats for a democracy and just a handful of bullies for a dictatorship.
I don't see anarchism functioning in any country now with people who don't know anarchism or reject it. But it may become an option in the future, assuming that democracies become even more democratic.

People will always choose safety over no safety, and anarchy provides no safety.

Global anarchy just isn't possible.
Even if global anarchy happens it would soon result in groups of people willing to impose their will on others, ex. under pretense to defend them self from vandals.
Given the nature of people this would soon result in grupation of people leading toward fight for leadership.

We are doomed to be ruled due to our evil nature.

 

[Heyo]

People will always choose safety over no safety, and anarchy provides no safety.

Global anarchy just isn't possible.
Even if global anarchy happens it would soon result in groups of people willing to impose their will on others, ex. under pretense to defend them self from vandals.
Given the nature of people this would soon result in grupation of people leading toward fight for leadership.

We are doomed to be ruled due to our evil nature.

I have a more optimistic image of man. I think most people are good most of the time. But they are also coward, stupid and lazy.
Unfortunately, image of man is a self fulfilling prophecy. You could have anarchism tomorrow, if people wouldn't fear people.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Democracy is the worst and it's disgusting. Voting is the core of everything evil.

Well, you'll be happy to know that the US is in the process of doing away with it. Six -- count 'em, 6 -- election deniers have won primaries for key roles just today.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't. It's my interpretation of how the post I quoted would replace voting.

Yeah, I figured. But any time one can make a Mad Max reference, one should do exactly that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The problem with the US and my country, the UK, is that they are NOT good democracies.
Trump won in 2016 with less votes that Clinton; I'm sure there are examples where the Dems have won similarly
In my country the Tories have a massive majority yet won less than 44% of the vote.

This is not democratic

It is democratic. Perhaps not your preferred form of democracy, which is a different thing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In anarchy, everyone decide for themselves what to do, they don't oppress others with their decisions.

Yeah, so, you really don't see any issues of compatability with those 2 statements you have huddled together in a single sentence?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Democracy is the worst and it's disgusting. Voting is the core of everything evil.

That seems like an overstatement. Methinks you've found religion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That would be nice, but is highly unlikely. What if my neighbor starts dumping stuff in the brook by my house and poisons everything downstream from him?

Move upstream. You have freedom of choice.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Bad guys? In anarchy? How? Bad guys exist in democracy.

All right...so...I'm struggling to work out if you're being serious at this point.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It was fine. A great day.

Is this Opposite Day?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is this Opposite Day?

Whole conversation reminds me of a passage from a novel...

'But then it’s difficult, isn’t it, to make a passionate argument for what you already have? So boring. Whereas the delightful alternative? A bouquet of promises! A sackful of dreams! A glorious ship of fantasies, undamaged by collision with actually getting anything done.'

Joe Abercrombie (The Trouble With Peace)

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Move upstream. You have freedom of choice.

You may not. Mobility of one's life may be more difficult than threatening violence on the perpetrators.

Now, I don't actually believe one should do this, but my whole point was to illustrate how communities end up collectively agreeing on rules.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You may not. Mobility of one's life may be more difficult than threatening violence on the perpetrators.

Now, I don't actually believe one should do this, but my whole point was to illustrate how communities end up collectively agreeing on rules.

Awww...sorry. I've confused people with my posting style a couple of times recently.

So, my pithiness aside, and with my serious face on...

I completely agree with you. To think that people will take actions fully cognisant and caring of their actions on all around them, without a substantial percentage of them acting in their own self interest seems to fly in the face of my varied experience in this world.

Some will do 'the right thing' for sure. Heck, be optimistic and say most. But even those folk will disagree about what the right thing is in many circumstances. And some will act in self interest.

I'm unsure what long term successful society has run without laws or strong customs, and a body enforcing them in some manner. And unsure why anarchists seem so dismissive of that fact.

Idealism is good. But without pragmatism it's just dreams. Anyone with experience implementing anything knows how important visionaries are. But equally, they know how much effort it takes to turn vision into even a bastardised reality.

 

[Altfish]

It is democratic. Perhaps not your preferred form of democracy, which is a different thing.

I thought democracy was supposed to reflect the will of the people?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I thought democracy was supposed to reflect the will of the people?

All depends. I favour Schumpter's definition. It's a little less idealistic than some, but it seems pretty close to reality.

The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.

the classical theory of democracy attributed to the electorate an altogether unrealistic degree of initiative which practically amounted to ignoring leadership.

the purpose of democratic method [is] not to select representatives who carry out the will of the people, but to choose individuals who [will] govern on their behalf.

Source : Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, p.250

 

[syo]

Well, you'll be happy to know that the US is in the process of doing away with it. Six -- count 'em, 6 -- election deniers have won primaries for key roles just today.

Are they anarchists?