reply
- Feature
- Like
Personally I would like to see a society where the people follow leaders by choice, rather than being forced to do so by an organization. And I think it is possible. The American revolution was won without a draft. Religious discrimination ended in New England without the government's help. America was stronger as a nation before the public education system. A loose coalition of family groups defeated the US Army at Little Bighorn without an organized military. Again and again it has been shown that human beings can function without the interference of an organized government.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I don't believe that anarchy is a viable idea. I know too many people without a moral center. Without law to keep them in check... I shudder at the possibility.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I'm in favor of anarchy as more a means to an end, a beginning point for experimental societies. I think that we don't really know a lot about what makes a good society. History is our only real reference on what is functional or not, and the problem with using history is that there are so many variables that we can really only make broad inferences. Technology is always changing the rules, and as long as that is happening history does not serve as a reliable marker of what is true at present. The most attractive part of anarchism to me is complete freedom of association; you are only in an organization if you want to be. If you're in a society that you don't want to be in (born into a nationality) then chances are that society doesn't want you either. I think an altruistic society is possible (one that Noam Chomsky would call "altruistic enough") if people have actually chosen to be where they are and can leave any time they wish. It is when people have nowhere to go that they become dangers to society and themselves. That said, it would be absurd to change a major developed state into an anarchy. I think you would have to start on a small level with a populace full of willing participants. My variant of anarchy is a sort of political paganism where society adopts the orders and meanings it needs to pragmatically.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Anarchism in America: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5896151564855675002" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5896151564855675002
reply
- Feature
- Like
In my opinion, anarachy, in its most abstract sense, is an impossibility. You could say that there are no established or agreed upon laws which enable for a governement, or a body responsible for creating and maintaining such laws, to impose restrictions on an individual, but, in such a case, there will always be those who are more powerful and will, as a result of such power, impose their will upon others - effectively negating individual freedoms. I guess I agree that the ideal society would be composed of a government that governs least, but, in principle, anarchy is absurdity, and it is only through the creation of systems and methods that anything can be accomplished. What would it take to create a functioning anarchistic society? I think the collaboration of people on the smallest possible scale - if any at all - and the reliquishment of ambition to attain more then what it necessary: satisfaction with a small amount of things that can be maintained without infringement on other individual's property, or ability to do the same. This sounds a lot like order, and an agreed upon, implicit social contract, though.
reply
- Feature
- Like
"The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi "Anarchy, -- the absence of a master, of a sovereign." (What is Property, 1840) "ANARCHY, or the government of each man by himself --or as the English say, self-government..." (The Federal Principle, 1863) "Anarchism [is] the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished. Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else." (Liberty V March 10, 1888) Ben Tucker "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." (Society Without A State 1975) Murray Rothbard
reply
- Feature
- Like
i would like to hear an example of a successful anarchy too. however, anarchy was wrongly interpreted. the original idea was a society without any control elements. but that would require people that can deal with that without using it for their own advantage and become criminals. an unfortunately, this is not existent. bottom line: the general idea is good, but it's not convertible.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Anarchy often provides the quickest solution to a problem, as it does not discount any philosophy other than survival. Organization rises from the anarchy through competition and evolution, at some point it's debatable if it can still be considered an anarchy. So, in my opinion, anarchy is the best course of action if you do not know the action to take. But once organization appears, if it seems abusive, then abolish it in favor of anarchy, or support it and see where it takes you. Simply put, I do not believe Anarchy should be the end product. Interestingly enough, Google uses an almost anarchic algorithm to power its search routine (a dramatically awesome curve fitting algorithm... secret and proprietary, though we have gleaned some of it). So anarchy works wonders for processing ambiguous data (Anyone who has used the Monte Carlo method to solve a problem knows exactly what I mean).
reply
- Feature
- Like
