It's very different from no rules at all. The whole group enforces the rules.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would anarchism last?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Of course, they wouldn't have free reign if the rest of the people stand up to their bullying from the word go.
PureX
Veteran Member
That requires organization, and that organization is called "government". And it will be those same bullyboys that we need to protect ourselves from that will be clamoring to try and run our government. So it's an eternal problem. And anarchy has never and will never resolve it. The only solution is to form good effective governments that will act to protect us all from each other, and then we have to work hard at keeping that government effective and free of the bullyboy's perverting grasp.
So far humanity has not learned to do this. And we have suffered greatly from that ignorance.
Last edited:
OH NO! NOT THE BULLYBOYS boogeyman!!
Let's set up permanent institutions and delegate to them the power to control the bullyboys! Let's see, who should we put in charge of those institutions? It's got to be someone who will be tough on making sure the bullyboys don't get into power! Hmmmm...maybe a smart bullyboy, who doesn't act like that's what he is until he gets in power?
Look, if we do what we did we'll get what we got. As you admit, "so far humanity has not learned to do this" with it's current array of nation-states...which seem to always degenerate toward domination by bullyboys.
So maybe we need to try something different...a system where we don't build large permanent institutions that can be easily captured by bullies. As you admit, "then we have to work hard at keeping that government effective and free of the bullyboy's perverting grasp." That's what syndicalist anarchism calls for. It's governance (not GOVERNMENT) as a participation sport, not a spectator sport, which is what our current systems appear to be.
Let's set up permanent institutions and delegate to them the power to control the bullyboys! Let's see, who should we put in charge of those institutions? It's got to be someone who will be tough on making sure the bullyboys don't get into power! Hmmmm...maybe a smart bullyboy, who doesn't act like that's what he is until he gets in power?
Look, if we do what we did we'll get what we got. As you admit, "so far humanity has not learned to do this" with it's current array of nation-states...which seem to always degenerate toward domination by bullyboys.
So maybe we need to try something different...a system where we don't build large permanent institutions that can be easily captured by bullies. As you admit, "then we have to work hard at keeping that government effective and free of the bullyboy's perverting grasp." That's what syndicalist anarchism calls for. It's governance (not GOVERNMENT) as a participation sport, not a spectator sport, which is what our current systems appear to be.
really? On what planet is that supposed to happen? Because in the history of mankind, there has never been an entire community where everybody has had 100% agreement concerning every rule possible; people don't operate that way
Oh! It might be difficult! People might actually have to put out effort for their own governance! Horrors!
Okay, then, we'll just stick with the current systems that haven't been working particularly well themselves...
How long with our democratic republic last? Or any democracy? Or any dictatorship? Or any cartel? They ALL have problems! What's the solution, then?
PureX
Veteran Member
And if we do nothing, we'll get a lot worse.
Within every population of humans there will be a percentage that want to own everything and control everyone. And an even bigger percentage that will be willing to screw over their neighbor to get whatever they want or need for themselves. And so we have to develop ways of protecting ourselves from ourselves, and from each other, and from aggressive, abusive outsiders. And not only that, we also collectively have to find a way of determining what we need to do for the good of the collective, and see to it that it gets done. Because individuals will not think or act on behalf of their collective automatically, on their own.
All of this requires a governmental system of some sort. Not anarchy. Anarchy is just another term for complete societal chaos and lawlessness.
We need first to understand that WE ARE THE BULLYBOYS. And the bullyboys are us. That we all have a bit of the bullyboy in us because we're all willing to sacrifice the well being of a neighbor to increase our own. This is step one, and the step that we never seem to manage to take to heart. And because we dont do that, every attempt we try to set of a good and fair form of government, it gets perverted and corrupted right from the start by our own "invisible" desire to have more control over it than others, so that the others won't have any control over us.
The bullyboys are ALWAYS willing to participate! They can't participate ENOUGH!
It's not horrors, it's unrealistic. To suggest a human society that depends on every member of society to choose to do the right thing; with nobody choosing to cheat in any way is absurd IMO
It's working a heck of a lot better than a system that falls apart the moment someone decides to misbehave!
Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean you should change it for something different, unless that something different is better than what is in place. Anarchy though different is not better than the current system in place.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's why nobody is suggesting that. Not everybody has to behave, just the majority - and have not to be apathetic when someone misbehaves.
Spoken like a true, hardcore conservative. Just don't change anything, it will only get worse.
So vigilantly justice? What makes you think vigilantly justice will be better than the current system?
No, I'm saying don't change stuff just for the sake of changing, but to make sure it is for the better
Heyo
Veteran Member
It may not be better than some systems but it will be more just because it will be more equal. No "qualified immunity", no military sponsored heavy gear - and no "us" versus "them" mentality.
Sometimes one has to try to see if the change is any good. You can't be sure that it will be better.
But remember: it isn't guaranteed that things get better when they change, but things have to change to get better.
What you will have is gangs, where the most powerful gang will rule. the problem with gang rule is the gang is not accountable to anybody so there is no reason to be fair, and no consequence when they become corrupt. The current system at least allows everybody to have a voice/vote on who is allowed in power.
Things also have to change to get worse.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I guess we won't convince each other as our positions rest mostly on our outlook in life. I'm a mostly positive, optimistic person (with severe depression) and you are a negative, pessimistic person with a negative Menschenbild. It wouldn't be healthy for me to ponder that any more. So, have a miserable day (in assumption that you'd prefer it that way).
No, we're both speculating; I base my speculation on the countless examples of people forming gangs in order to control their neighborhood/community/environment, and those gangs always end up doing things to their advantage and to the detriment of everyone else. You seem to be basing your speculation on wishful thinking. There are countless reasons why anarchy has never worked.
How does anarchism relate to predatorial attitudes and to the existence of some form of government and governance exactly?
I don't think I agree with the OP's take on this matter very closely at all.
Far as I can see, Anarchism is attractive to predatorial types, because it brings the expectation of triumph and impunity to the most capable and motivated predators.
It can be also be attractive to certain groups with fascistic leanings, because they have convinced themselves that they have some sort of vocation or natural affinity towards either being movers and shakers in some form of natural "rule of the superior people" or having the ear of those movers and shakers.
Needless to say, those people dwell routinely in deep-set delusions and what they actually support tends to be groups of entitled bullies with trouble at accepting or even acknowledging the reality of facts and the facts of reality.
Anarchism that takes itself seriously and with lucidity would be very much like the life of native people in places like the Amazon jungles, Australia and elsewhere. Perhaps a meritory lifestyle, but also very much incompatible with modern day expectations and amenities.
I don't think I agree with the OP's take on this matter very closely at all.
Far as I can see, Anarchism is attractive to predatorial types, because it brings the expectation of triumph and impunity to the most capable and motivated predators.
It can be also be attractive to certain groups with fascistic leanings, because they have convinced themselves that they have some sort of vocation or natural affinity towards either being movers and shakers in some form of natural "rule of the superior people" or having the ear of those movers and shakers.
Needless to say, those people dwell routinely in deep-set delusions and what they actually support tends to be groups of entitled bullies with trouble at accepting or even acknowledging the reality of facts and the facts of reality.
Anarchism that takes itself seriously and with lucidity would be very much like the life of native people in places like the Amazon jungles, Australia and elsewhere. Perhaps a meritory lifestyle, but also very much incompatible with modern day expectations and amenities.
I will tell you: Your genie would have to make every living human -- and every human born thereafter -- completely virtuous, completely rational, and completely free. Then I think humans might well not need a state.
So, begin with yourself. Are you completely virtuous, rational and free? Is anyone you know completely virtuous, rational and free?
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
To everyone who responded to me and is waiting for me to respond...
I'm gonna take my time because I'm diving back into reading. Just downloaded audible, gonna listen to a book today I think.
Anarchism, especially the type I believe in, is attacked from every angle. So I need to understand it better for debate.
Remember, a delayed post is forever good but a rushed post sucks forever.
Any book recommendations by the way, on the topic of political theory or economics that anyone would recommend?
I'm on vacation from work, so I'll be able to spend time studying once again.
I'm gonna take my time because I'm diving back into reading. Just downloaded audible, gonna listen to a book today I think.
Anarchism, especially the type I believe in, is attacked from every angle. So I need to understand it better for debate.
Remember, a delayed post is forever good but a rushed post sucks forever.
Any book recommendations by the way, on the topic of political theory or economics that anyone would recommend?
I'm on vacation from work, so I'll be able to spend time studying once again.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
So I understand the question your asking but I isolated this part because I want to point out that (my branch of) anarchism does not believe in intellectual property rights. So Car Company A is not in the wrong with your specific scenario, in my eyes. I understand what your asking though, IP is besides the point.
So imagine in a free market society, there would be competing arbiters. Both car companies would agree on an arbiter. Perhaps there are stipulations that car companies agree to with each other beforehand, such as which arbiter they go to in the case of a disagreement. But there is not one set arbiter (e.g. a state) that would decide. Everything is voluntary in a free market society. The free market in such an environment is supposed that it will spontaneously and naturally form and grow.
Citizens do have a say as to what companies do. An individual does not have to associate with said company. But if a company is making use of their resources in a way where citizens do allow association, then the company will obviously thrive. That is how citizens vote in a free market society I guess. But there is not a “voting system” or any form of democracy in anarcho-capitalist formulations, for voting is aggression.
And competing courts would exists. A polar opposite to what exists today. The State currently claims itself to be the ultimate arbiter in every case, even cases against the State. This is immoral, in my eyes. It is not voluntary. Only a free market system creates a legal system in which you voluntarily participate.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
I wholeheartedly, categorically, indisputably, and seriously disagree with you on this one.
It is most important not to take them seriously. Suppose if no one took the government seriously. When they would point and say “Bomb and shoot those people in that country!”, we would all shrug our shoulders and go about our lives, if we didn’t take the government seriously. But we treat government with the upmost seriousness, so we go and shoot and bomb other people.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
I think you may be right. If not completely, then you are at least mostly right.
Yet, I still see the state as immoral and anarchism as moral. Shouldn’t we always strive for morality?
Well, an anarchist society does account for immorality. There is hypothetical justice in Ancapistan.
Perhaps the perpetual existence of a State throughout all of recorded history is a reflection of the immorality of man. To hope for a moral system amongst a bunch of immoral apes... it‘s like asking a lion to become vegetarian!