Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
Well, not to pop the bubble, but the violence - while not a part of anarchism - would definately be a result of it. Anarchistic philosophy makes the assumption that all people are decent and want to get along with one another, and that it's only "the state" that keeps them from doing so. The unfortunate reality is that those divisions would exist with or without a state. People are competitive creatures, and can be quite horrible to one another.
Let's say we have an anarchic society. And some poor fool has whatever sociopathic mental imbalance needed to make a serial killer of him. He does not need a "state" at his back to be a dangerous psychopath. How do you handle this? You have no police. You have no investigative department. You're all equally in charge of yourselves, and either you compromise your anarchism and create a governmental body to handle the threat, or you pursue individual vigilantism... And a quick thumbing through the pages of reality is that vigilantes rarely ever get the right person. This would result in reprisals, then feuding, etc. Eventually the anarchic society will be forced to abandon anarchy just to handle all the problems caused by people just being people, even the nonviolent ones.
Nice idea, makes a great coffee table book, becomes retarded when applied to live humans
The part about the violence being a result of the anarchistic society is a valid point. There are some people who would thrive on the lawlessness, among other ignorant people like the racists, bigots, and just altogether other moronic activities.
I do not believe the government is what is holding back society, in the general sense. I do however believe the government does not want people uniting without the government being in control. Another words, if a person like for example were to unite the people like Martin Luther King Jr, that person would be a threat because they would not let the government control them. Now I am not saying that MLK was or was not the best person in society, I am only using him as an example here. There are things though that should be considered when a leader steps forward.
A leader is a public figure, someone who should not be able to collect a paycheck from anyone other than the people he or she was elected to represent. However, this is not how things work. I can understand book deals, and public speaking events and getting paid for that, but it still has to be examined as to the context of the contract, who is paying that leader, and for what reason. The "I represent Wheaties..." type event is complete crap to Me. So sorry, if I do not like "Wheaties" I would not say that, no matter how big the paycheck. I'm picking on Wheaties here as an example as I happen to like Wheaties.
Now, where's My paycheck? lol
Kidding, only kidding, about the paycheck part.
[edit on 26-1-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]
