I have this idea for quite a while and I think it's time to get some other people's noodle on the subject.
In every civil society there exists an established order (i.e. laws and law enforcement). Is this truly
ight? Who establishes the laws? People in power, often who believe they know what is right. The laws are put into place to protect your average Joe from other people who are not
ight. It sounds to me like the lawmakers are a tad bit self righteous. If we are lucky, then the majority of the populace agrees with the laws (product of democracy), but is this not like the sorrowful man getting drunk? It solves the problem for a while, but on a long enough time line it all goes to hell. The better the system the longer the civilization survives, but eventually it will all end up the same.
It is my belief that the best for of government is.....none! Now hold on there, I know you're going to say, Then people will go crazy and no one will be safe, etc., etc.. Yes, I know. Without the possibility of punishment, many people would do things to hurt others. That's the REAL problem. People. The human race has evolved in leaps and bounds in all areas of intelligence and procuctivity and such, but how about in the way we treat each other? There have been civil rights advancements and such, but how do much progress do we really think that is? We still hate, we still steal, we still do all the many things that hurt others because it produces some enjoyable outcome for us. For the greater part, most of us know that it is wrong, or at the very least that it is selfish, but we still do it. We STILL do it. All the time.
That is why I believe the perfect society has no government. It would need none. It is as simple as people loving their fellow man as much as themselves. That is all. So dang simple it is absolutely mind boggling. We need not build anything, or calculate anthing. There is no work to be done at all! We would just have to STOP being selfish, self serving, uncaring creatures.
Yes, I believe that anarchy is not in the least a bad thing. I just think that we are all too stupid and inept to handle it. Human beings are advanced creatures? By what standard?
What do you think? 😉
Anarchy IS bad. but what you are suggesting, is not anarchy, it is self control and freedom. yes i beleive we would be better off without a government, but the problem is most people how agree with us are real anarchists, which sticks us in the crack-pot section, thus removing the governments problem.
However if we did get rid of govt. one power base would be removed, but another would still exist, capitolism, without the govt. "protecting" us we would quickley become slaves to capitolism, yes remove govt. but remove capitolism first.
It sounds to me like the lawmakers are a tad bit self righteous. If we are lucky, then the majority of the populace agrees with the lawsBritish law is based (only based, I know there are holes) on a central premise - do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. One common exception is things like drugs, gambling & sex, which can be addictive and therefore we may end up not chosing to do them but rather forced by the addiction. In these cases the action is either banned or banned for minors, who are deemed even less able to decide for themselves.
So if the central idea is to be free to do what you want to do, but at the same time stopping people doing harm to each other, then this sounds like a pretty good basis for civilisation for me, and better than hoping that people will be nice to each other (history proves that they won't be).
Plus, if you take away all the control systems, they would just start again. It'd just revert to the strongest gang makes the rules, and these rules wouldn't be anywhere near as fair.
Does the fact that you ant to do good to your fellow man not show that you have been brought up in a society that promotes this way of thinking? In an anarchistic society I'm sure this idealism would disolve quickly
I believe society has much less to do with the way that I am than you may think. I spent the greater part of my life in the proverbial "boonies" far and away from most of the world (we're talking way the heck out there). That aside, I firmly believe in the individual. Every man is responsible for WHO they are and HOW they affect the world around them.
The greater point I am trying to make is that the NEED for laws exists because a large portion (ahem) of people will accept responsibility for themselves and how they affect others lives. The very existence of an upper class is a good example. The problem I see is that the existence of the system as it stands is that with our general acceptance of the judicial system as a good way we are denying ourselves something better. What is legal is not always moral and vice versa, but how often will a person take an action that is directly harmful to one or more people for their own benefit because it is legal to do so? Legality be damned, I want accountability!
Originally posted by OmnislashWhat sort of accountability do you think will be had in an anarchistic society? Do you think there will be justice to be had in such a society, or will there merely be vengeance?
I believe society has much less to do with the way that I am than you may think. I spent the greater part of my life in the proverbial "boonies" far and away from most of the world (we're talking way the heck out there). That aside, I firmly believe in the individual. Every man is responsible for WHO they are and HOW they affect the world around them. ...[text shortened]... for their own benefit because it is legal to do so? Legality be damned, I want accountability!
Originally posted by belgianfreakfirst of all you should really consider just what you are saying.the central premise of the british government is "spend your whole life working to pay to live, and in your spare time, maybe you can do a few thing that we have determined as none-harmful"
British law is based (only based, I know there are holes) on a central premise - do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. One common exception is things like drugs, gambling & sex, which can be addictive and therefore we may end up not chosing to do them but rather forced by the addiction. In these cases the action is either banned or b ...[text shortened]... es this way of thinking? In an anarchistic society I'm sure this idealism would disolve quickly
we start are lives trapped to our undeveloped bodies and minds, then we become trapped by our parents, already (about age 4) capitolism is taking hold in our minds. then we become trapped to the ducation system (we have no choice, hardly freedom). then when we are freed of this, we have 2 choices. We could be consumed by the capitolist regime, or become beggars on the streets. By the tie most of us have retired, are bodies have become to frail to do some of what dreamed of when we were younge, again we are enslaved by our bodies, then it ends we are freed in death.
Does the fact that the magority of man wants to destroy the rest of its fellow man reflect on the society as whole? remember the one who wants to do good is an "anarchist".
remember, even the govt. is enslaved to the capitolist regime
Originally posted by bbarralot more than in this corrupted system we live in.
What sort of accountability do you think will be had in an anarchistic society? Do you think there will be justice to be had in such a society, or will there merely be vengeance?
"anarchy" was coined by government spin to keep the revolution at bay. after all who wants something labeled anarchy?
this is exactly what the "anarchy" movement is about, an uprising to improve the system. Arent we supossed to be above steriotyping things by name bbar?
Originally posted by nktwildOmnislashe's original post seems to equate anarchism with the lack of a law-making body. Under that definition of anarchism, I'm asking about the extent to which accountability will be meeted out justly. This seems like a fair question, no?
alot more than in this [b]corrupted system we live in.
"anarchy" was coined by government spin to keep the revolution at bay. after all who wants something labeled anarchy?
this is exactly what the "anarchy" movement is about, an uprising to improve the system. Arent we supossed to be above steriotyping things by name bbar?[/b]
But your post raises an interesting issue. Omnislashe's working definition of anarchism (lack of law-making body) is not necessarily the definition that many self-proclaimed anarchists acknowledge. Many self-proclaimed anarchists describe anarchy as being the removal of centralized government and its replacement with local community government. Many self-proclaimed anarchists don't even go this far, but advocate keeping a central power just to 'provide for the common defense'.
I'm not sure which of these radically different anarchisms you advocate, but I think it's hardly fair to accuse me of stereotyping your anarchist position when you have failed to be clear about which type of anarchism you are talking about.
Originally posted by nktwildwas I talking about government or capatalism? No, I was talking about rules and law as opposed to anarchy. Yes, the rules are made by the govenment & the judicial syatem, but I wasn't defending them. I was simply stating that a society, any society, without rules cannot exist. Please don't accuse me of being wrong about something I didn't say.
first of all you should really consider just what you are saying.the central premise of the british government is "spend your whole life working to pay to live, and in your spare time, maybe you can do a few thing that we have determined as none-harmful"
we start are lives trapped to our undeveloped bodies and minds, then we become trapped by our parents, ...[text shortened]... to do good is an "anarchist".
remember, even the govt. is enslaved to the capitolist regime
What do you mean by saying you either are a slave to capitalism or you are out on the streets? At a more basic level you are saying you either work to get food or you starve - that's the way of the world with or without capatalism or communism or any other ism. It's life.
Originally posted by OmnislashI'm not sure if I understand what you are getting at. Sure if all people were unselfish and worked only for the common good then it might be possible to do without some system of authority. But not all people are like that and that's just the world we live in. There's no sign of it changing, so order and authority are necessary.
I have this idea for quite a while and I think it's time to get some other people's noodle on the subject.
In every civil society there exists an established order (i.e. laws and law enforcement). Is this truly
ight? Who establishes the laws? People in power, often who believe they know what is right. The laws are put into place to protect your ave ...[text shortened]... t to handle it. Human beings are advanced creatures? By what standard?
What do you think? 😉
But suppose we lived in a world where everyone did strive for nothing but the common good. Wouldn't we lose part of our humanity if we were like that? Wouldn't we just become like ants? In fact, are ants morally perfect?
Mick 🙂
The trouble with an individually imposed morality is that different people have different moral standards. The law puts limits on what you do - but it also puts limits what others do to you. Without generally agreed rules, contracts are worthless - bear in mind that even paper money is a contract (it says on British notes 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds'!) This is quite aside from the problems caused by a minority who would pursue reckless behaviour, such as violent crime, in the absence of the fear of punishment.
Self-interest is not as bad as people make out; cooperation is an essential part of human nature precisely because it is usually in your interests to do so. More serious, in fact, are the things people do which are not in their interests. Hatred of other races for example is stupid and pointless, and doesn't help the haters at all. Also in this category are people ignoring their long-term self-interest, for example, by drinking to excess or by playing truant at school.
The question is: how many problems are caused by people being selfish, how many by them being ill-informed, and how many by man's innate stupidity? In crude terms, the solution to the first is collective and representative social structures, such as government; to the second is education; and the third, we just have to live with unless/until we abandon our humanity.
Originally posted by mikado"Sure if all people were unselfish and worked only for the common good then it might be possible to do without some system of authority."
I'm not sure if I understand what you are getting at. Sure if all people were unselfish and worked only for the common good then it might be possible to do without some system of authority. But not all people are like that and that's jus ...[text shortened]... t become like ants? In fact, are ants morally perfect?
Mick 🙂
Even then we'd need some kind of organising presence. Ants' behaviour is genetically hard-wired and in that sense ants are amoral, but human societies have evolved too quickly and are now much too complex for that to work.
"But suppose we lived in a world where everyone did strive for nothing but the common good. Wouldn't we lose part of our humanity if we were like that?"
Indeed we would. There may come a time when, through genetic engineering, drugs or unforseen technology, we decide this is desirable. This seems to be the decision that the creators of the Borg came to in Star Trek, though the Borg's rapacity is because they're 'evil', not as a necessary consequence of their collective mind.
Hatred of other races for example is stupid and pointless, and doesn't help the haters at allI agree with a lot of what you say, but not this bit. If you look at man as an animal, who's primary evolutionary aim is to pass on his genes, then hatred towards people who are different races is perfectly natural as they are from a different gene pool. Wrong, but natural - that pretty well sums up all the actions that we have urges to do that civilisation & society attempts to quell.
eg. I will steal your food, therefore I will be more likely to survive to have children
eg2. I will kill you & your kin therefore there will be more food for my children & my genes will be more likely to survive.
eg3. I will rape your women, passing on my genes.
All "natural" male responses which society tries to discourage.
Several people have made reference to the fact that we are ruled by our base nature. I propose that we are omnivore's (not omnilash's <snicker chuckle>😉 who do NOTHING BUT strive for dominance just as our cousins the chimpanzee's. EVERY INSTITUTION, be it an organization, a club, a group or a gathering (see RHP) of humans involves DOMINANCE behavior.
I challenge any and all people on this site to come up with ONE example of a group of more than two people that doesn't have a built in dominance heirarchy. If none is predefined then show me A SINGLE group who doesn't conduct an "argument" or "debate" or "fight" or "ceremony" or "vote" or "war" or "election" or "nomination" or "flip of coin" ... ad infinitum... to determine our rankings. In order of invention : Religions, families, gangs < specifically: vigilant citizens, police,military >, economics<herein falls all "isms">, government, business... ARE ALL GAMES WE INVENT TO EXERCISE CHIMP LIKE BEHAVIOR AND DOMINANCE.
Omnilash is more right than he knows. No institution invented by humans is without tainting and none are strictly requred or needed. They are instead, just our way of being good dominant predator beings.Our psych requres that we have SOME STATUS, or we parish.
As a side note, this also explains the "spaming" members of the forums. If we as human beings are powerless and have no recognition, we will "spam" our way to recognition and status, even if we become notorious. <widely known unfavorably> Children who scream and "act out" can be cured in a week by receiving important work to do in the family or community that lets them be real people of status and worth. Not just pretend work, but real stuff they can take pride in.
Our invented institutions allow us to play at being what we are without killing each other (too much). We are way beyond safe population density margins for the PROVEN AGGRESSORS THAT WE ARE.
The good news is that there is a solid hope for the future that doesn't involve genecide (for a change). We can expand the human race into space where it belongs. "Lets get off this mud ball gang!". Out of the cradle kids. Lets go explore the universe! The added benefit is that after a few thousand years we CAN RETURN with reverence and turn the Earth into a giant "preserve" or protected, sacred place. The greens have the right goal but their time scale and priorities are way off. Use as much resource as needed to expand into space and establish a viable system wide civilization. Then clean up and preserve the Earth.