It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
Thats the misconception about organized anarchy: it is NOT a band of lawless men ruling by force. it is localized, very localized, people who will enforce common laws with vigour. There will always be the need to isolate and house, or execute, criminals. There will still be jails, and trials..all tha keeps going on. It is local and speedy and efficient, no doubt. In many places no doubt it would be severe also.
From Wikipedia which is as good as any -
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
Originally posted by Blaine91555
That is not Anarchy. That is a Democratic System of Government without a Central Authority.
"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against oneself -- are nourished" Eric Fromm The Fear of Freedom, p. 158
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think I'll escape from this thread by saying these things:
I understand what you are after and I applaud the concept.
I think you are being naive` if you believe people are capable of behaving in a way consistent with this type of system.
I think you are well meaning but don't understand that the system is not responsible for all evil and a percentage of us are born bad or evil.
I think you have been lulled into a false sense this will work by flowery speech by those who would desire to rule and control you.
Your ideas totally ignore the lazy and evil among us who will never submit to any system or authority and this form of self-rule can not deal with this.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
To communicate words have to have specific meanings. It seems to me whenever someone redefines words they are engaging in spin to hide something or confuse someone.
The public thinks anarchy means chaos or terrorism. But many people who claim to be anarchists are also confused as to its meaning. Some think anarchism is a doctrine espousing the right to do what ever you want. Others dream that one day a pure anarchist utopia, a kind of earthly Paradise of peace and freedom will come to be. Neither of these conceptions were Proudhon's. "Anarchy" did not mean a pure or absolute state of freedom, for pure anarchism was an ideal or myth.
[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation.[2]
...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear...[3]
Proudhon wanted people to minimalize the role of authority, as part of a process, that may or may not lead to anarchy. The end was not so important as the process itself.
By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune.[4] NB. "Commune" means municipality.
In your society who makes the decisions when their is no consensus? The fellow with the biggest gun? You?
Take for example me? I don't care for your system...I prefer to live under a Democratic form of Government. Will you force me at gunpoint to give up my property?... Who decides who does what jobs?
Inevitably what happens in one community will effect other communities and there will be disputes.
...how will these individually ruled communities produce modern products and distribute them without a system of exchange...Nobody is going to help build these products unless they get something in return.
If you do envision going back to basics and simple barter; you do realize billions will die? Don't you? How will you force this plot on the whole World?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think you are well meaning but don't understand that the system is not responsible for all evil and a percentage of us are born bad or evil.
What is human nature? Are we basically good, evil, or a little of both? Philosophers have debated this throughout the ages, but today science delivers some definitive news. Humans are naturally altruistic.
In Germany at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, a window has been opened into human behavior. Experiments involving prelinguistic and just post-linguistic children as young as 18 months showed the toddlers to be freely and voluntarily helpful in situations where the experimenter feigned a need for help.
Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]