Anarchism, split form the (De)Motivator thread. :)

[freakazoid]

In order to keep that one from being hijacked.

If they are examples of anarchy, I'll have some government please.  If you think they had it better, then you are naive. 

Living a simple life sure does suck?

I prefer your pictures of wannabe revolutionaries in black.  Better that anarchism be represented for the adolescent daydream that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbIpgGKtj5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzjuE5ahetA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI
^^ Man would you just look at that young whippersnapper.

The North American indians did not fare well against a better organized invading government.  I'll take my risks with a government... worts and all.

So you would of sided with the Nazis if you thought that they were going to win?

If there were no government, within ten minutes a couple busybodies would get together to form one.  laugh

And you would have all of the anarchist fighting them.

From what I understand, those anarchists who aren't merely looking for a good time throwing stones and acting rowdy believe that society can cooperate via voluntary contracts and "syndicates."

That's because the media doesn't show why they did what they did.
In this you kind of get an inside look, sort of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ9iQoSW9jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVmfQzo7NHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM1Mghp32Fk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dYh7KqR3n4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjrRRbbvc30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cd3m5wqwZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZVzQOm-_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSCDgdB5fc

Show me a single historical example of a stable anarchy. Just one.

What do you mean by stable?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA5.html And again, the Indians.

From the Notes On Virginia by Thomas Jefferson.

This practice results from the circumstance of their having never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.

There is also a really great quote about the Indians from the Journals of Lewis and Clark but it is currently in storage, When I get it out I'll post it. But what it pretty much states is that the "Chiefs" were not kings, they were just a wise person.

You know some of you with responses like,

They don't seem to realize that if you tear down what exists, the historical odds are you won't like what replaces it at all.

sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<

[The Rabbi]

OK!
A believer in anarchy who can't spell and uses specious reasoning.  Gotta love it.  Welcome to the forum.  Sit back and enjoy the recoil.

[Perd Hapley]

Hey!  I was gonna start a thread on anarchy.  No fair. 

[Jamisjockey]

But...but...what would we all do without Government assistance?

[lee n. field]

I was gonna start a thread on anarchy.  No fair. 

<shrug>.  In good anarchist fashion, start your thread on anarchy.

Yet another way Linux is superior: the Debian Anarchism FAQ.  (Alas, last I looked this was covered only the Euroleft claptrap variant of socialist anarchism, not the American style "libertarianism on steroids" free market anarchism.)

[MechAg94]

They don't seem to realize that if you tear down what exists, the historical odds are you won't like what replaces it at all.
sound a lot like the anti-gunners. They say that people can't be trusted with guns, your saying that people can't be trusted without government. It is just "common sense" laws. If you can't trust the people without government then how can you trust people with guns? Or do you think that there should be restrictions on firearms? What do you need a full-auto rifle for? After all they are only made for killing. <_<

You misunderstand what I said.  I was pointing out that those idiots who want anarchy need to read history and realize that something WILL replace the existing govt after they finish tearing it down.  History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now.  If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt).  It is naive.

A more famous man said that the purpose of govt is to control man's vices.  There will always be govt because there will always be idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's who think things will be better if only they were in charge and everyone did what they want cause they are smarter.  The Founders of this nation decided that if they can't get along with no govt, then they might as well come up with the least offensive govt they could imagine that would still be effective.  Our current govt is certainly a bit distant from that original ideal, but it is still better than a lot of alternatives.  Personally, I don't think most of those anarchists know anything about any of this.  If they did, they wouldn't be so quick dump the current system.

IMO, true anarchy sounds a lot like the original communist idea.  Everyone would just work together for their own good.  The problem is that it ignores the fact that men can be very evil and ambitious.  Some people just aren't satisfied unless they have power and control over others if not themselves.  There has to be some system of govt to deal with that, even if it is just a town meeting.  I guess anarchists imagine spontaneous vigilante mobs will take care of it. 

[Euclidean]

I've always looked at anarchism as an ideal situation more than an actual model of a viable government myself.   To be fair, anarchy is not everyone just do whatever they wants, and it's not chaos, it's not pointless violence, and it's not savagery.  Most people don't understand that.

I also don't think there's ever been a true anarchy except maybe in the Stone Age.  Even the Native American tribes had councils, chieftains, etc.  There was a clear chain of command and rules for making decisions.

Instead, I subscribe to minarchism, the idea of the smallest, most limited, least intrusive state possible.

[MechAg94]

That is minimalist govt or libertarian govt, not anarchy at all. 

[Tallpine]

There will always be govt because there will always be idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's who think things will be better if only they were in charge and everyone did what they want cause they are smarter.

Trouble is that all the idiots, psychopaths, warlords, and greedy SOB's get elected to run the govt

[wooderson]

I am, vaguely, an 'anarchist' - libertarian socialist, whatever. But I don't believe it's all that meaningful in the context of 'tomorrow, the Revolution!'

Radicalism is most useful in applying theory and strategy to the world as it is. Utopianism is well and good and we should all have our utopian ideals - but if you're focused only on Nirvana, you've basically made yourself useless in this world and probably set yourself up for a lifetime of heartbreak and bitterness. In that way I've always considered myself something of a 'pragmatic radical.'

In truth, I'd probably best be termed a "moral anarchist" - dogma and ideology not being something I'm comfortable.  My political beliefs, such as they are, are grounded in a refusal to abdicate moral autonomy to the state, religion, etc..

[griz]

A more famous man said that the purpose of govt is to control man's vices.

I'm probably picking over semantics here, but a vice is a bad habit such as getting drunk all day or gambling all your money away.  Controling vices should not be the govt's purpose.  It should gaurd against harm by others, not by ourselves.  At least in my view.

[MechAg94]

Here is the original quote I was referring to.  Yes, restraining vices to the point they do not affect others can be something govt should address, even if just a local govt.  I was using vices in reference to all the evils man is capable of inflicting on others, not just bad habits.  Wickedness is probably a better term.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html

[tyme]

History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now.  If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt).  It is naive.

History also tells us that a trip across the Atlantic takes weeks, dense things don't fly, and those beautiful lights in the sky are signs put there by an omnipotent, anthropomorphic being.

[The Rabbi]

History tells us that the new govt will almost certainly be something much worse than what they are under now.  If they really want something better, they need to either work within the system or come up with a better idea and plan than just anarchy (the absence of govt).  It is naive.

History also tells us that a trip across the Atlantic takes weeks, dense things don't fly, and those beautiful lights in the sky are signs put there by an omnipotent, anthropomorphic being.

Comparing states caused by lagging technology to human nature seems like a bad way to argue.
And some of us believe that those things in the sky really were put there by an Omnipotent being.  You want to believe in a nothing that exploded, that's your privilege.

[tyme]

Right, because social scientists have human nature, psychology, and sociology all figured out.

[The Rabbi]

Right, because social scientists have human nature, psychology, and sociology all figured out.

Your argumentation skills are rapidly deteriorating.  Just because something isnt 100% doesn't make it zero percent.  And it doesn't take a social scientist to know what will happen in a given situation.

[roo_ster]

Why do folks think that the Indians lived in anarchy?  Every account of their lives and societies is suffused with chiefs, elders, charismatic warriors, and meetings of same who direct the tribe.  They were humans & humans are social critters. 

Anarchism is yet another utopian philosophy that relies heavily on an ignorance of history and human nature to make it sound viable.  We've had quite enough of those in the last 200+ years*, thank you, and the mass graves full of those who were ground up by the utopian mill are are a warning to the living to strangle such impulses in the cradle.

* French Revolution being a fine starting point for the utopian impulse that has plagued us

[Tallpine]

Why do folks think that the Indians lived in anarchy?  Every account of their lives and societies is suffused with chiefs, elders, charismatic warriors, and meetings of same who direct the tribe.  They were humans & humans are social critters.

They managed to live without central government, overseas wars, income taxes, prisons, and the war on drugs.  That they had developed a social order is proof that "anarchy" does not equal chaos, which is what some/most people wrongly insist the word means.

Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).

[The Rabbi]

Why do folks think that the Indians lived in anarchy?  Every account of their lives and societies is suffused with chiefs, elders, charismatic warriors, and meetings of same who direct the tribe.  They were humans & humans are social critters.

They managed to live without central government, overseas wars, income taxes, prisons, and the war on drugs.  That they had developed a social order is proof that "anarchy" does not equal chaos, which is what some/most people wrongly insist the word means.

Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).

They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.
If you want to go back to the standard of living of 16th century Indians, go right ahead.  We'll write.

[Tallpine]

They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.

Except for the cities (with their gang wars, drug dealers, & prostitutes), nobody else had that stuff in the 19th Century either 

As far as equating lack of government with lack of technology - yeah, I forgot about all those govt research projects that developed the horseless carraige, interchangeable parts, assembly lines, personal computers, washing machines, ... etc 

[The Rabbi]

They also lived without cities, internet access, easy foreign travel, and ready and cheap communications.

Except for the cities (with their gang wars, drug dealers, & prostitutes), nobody else had that stuff in the 19th Century either 

As far as equating lack of government with lack of technology - yeah, I forgot about all those govt research projects that developed the horseless carraige, interchangeable parts, assembly lines, personal computers, washing machines, ... etc 

Right.  And society was much different then.  Your point?

Those particular research projects would have been impossible without
-Patents
-Contract law
-Stable currency
-Roads
-Eminent domain.

[MechAg94]

Interchangeable parts was made big by the gun industry.  The gun industry made them for governments.  Colt didn't build his pistols solely for civilian sale.  He was looking for big govt contracts. 

The Indians did not live in anarchy.  They had govt.  It wasn't the same as our govt, but it certainly wasn't anarchy.

[MechAg94]

Where did this really silly idea come from that if I don't like anarchy then I must be some big government statist?  Some of you deal in absolutes a bit too much. 

[MechAg94]

Native American culture was by no means utopia, though it is an example of voluntary social order arising without direction from central government (monopoly of force).

A lot of Indian women would probably disagree with that. 

No overseas wars?  You have never heard of Indian tribes fighting each other?  A number of tribes had central government also.  It wasn't just one villiage that defeated Custer. 

[Euclidean]

Those particular research projects would have been impossible without
-Patents
-Contract law
-Stable currency
-Roads
-Eminent domain.

Exactly.  The Rabbi gets it.  It's not that government is inherently good or that it is responsible for improvements in the human condition (it's not), it's that it's sometimes necessary.

For instance, how does one privately regulate and issue patents?  How can private parties make contracts between each other without a court system?  Who issues currency?

Roads I would argue with a little bit, as it's in the interest of private industry to build roads (Coca Cola and Budweiser can't sell lots of beverages without roads) and I bet that a privately owned self regulating industry could supply those needs.  Sounds like a good CATO study for some government major.

But back on topic, the state is a necessary evil.  Government is a human innovation, we just need a better form of it.