Does anarchy have the potential to work?

Hypothetically, if we were to overthrow, or simply rid ourselves of, the government, do you think that America's population would be able to survive in anarchy? Would we peacefully live in communes or the like, or would the whole US erupt into civil war?

I say no, purely because of human nature.

It is human nature of some of us to dominate and control others, and some of us are physically stronger than others.

Soon after anarchy set in, some would rise above by physical intimidation and essentially become the new government.

A utopian society without fear of violence would be great, but it will never happen because human nature does not work that way.

That's a good point. But what about, eg., hippie communes in the 60s and 70s? They had no set leaders, but functioned perfectly, with barely any trouble within. Couldn't we be like that, except on a much larger scale?

By the way, what's your profile pic? Lovecraft's Chtulu?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by mr. wildflowers]

reply to post by mr. wildflowers


But the hippie community was one of stagnation. They did nothing but get high and listen to music. Which is fine if thats your cup of tea

but as a species, the human race has to progress.


government is there, above all other things, to keep us from destroying ourselves. (In my opinion)

There is a potential for any political system to work. Americans have been bred as consumers, eventually we may wake up to our corruption but the paradigm shift required is so extreme, so foreign to us.

Although I agree with some of the ideals of the psychedelic years, the fabled hippie communes were short lived. We must appreciate the work they did for society, but it's time to look towards the future.

Well, I suppose you're right about needing to progress. However, is the government really keeping us from destroying ourselves? They're gradually introducing more and more ridiculous rules and regulations, and we'll end up never progressing because of their tight hold on us. If we do continue to progress with that oppression, what good is it if we live under their tyranny? Wouldn't absolute freedom be better than complete oppression?

It only works if people rally together and make a concerted effort to mess things up on a societal-scale.

but a grouping of people with intentions of rule..is...a....government

So, in my humble opinion, there is no real anarchy

you can be anarchal (is that even a word?) towards a particular government

but even if you, yourself, establish dominance, you are still a govt.

Ok. So there can never be true anarchy. But, if there was an almost complete absence of organized government, could people band together to live peacefully and well?

I think what you are looking for is a democratically elected form of representative government...i.e. a Republic. Thats what we have now its just become waaaaay to top heavy.
Limited government was the intention of our forefathers its too bad that we have not listened to them.

Originally posted by mr. wildflowers
Hypothetically, if we were to overthrow, or simply rid ourselves of, the government, do you think that America's population would be able to survive in anarchy? Would we peacefully live in communes or the like, or would the whole US erupt into civil war?

There's no such thing as getting rid of government. Someone will always lead, others will always follow. Even in the communes of Anarchist Pain and Hippy America, there were people who through merit, charisma, or intimidation, managed to become the heads of their communities who's word and thought carried the most weight. First among equals, if you will.

Now if America were to start living as self-sufficient communes... there would eventually be civil war, of a sort. Think Hatfield vs. McCoys - "this holler's our holler, y'all get the hell out!"

People are territorial and clannish. Every society on earth has either been built on this foundation, or tried to surpass it and failed.

reply to post by sacerd


Our founders also had no intention of being a continent-spanning world power either, but I never see any "go back to the founders" people advocating changing that. You want a big, powerful nation, well, you're going to need a big, powerful government to go with it.

Ok, well it's become pretty obvious that anarchy wouldn't work. However, if we had kept the limited government, controlled by the people, system that our founding fathers had created and envisioned, do you think that the US could have become the world controlling power that it is today? Would it have been better if we hadn't?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by sacerd

 

Our founders also had no intention of being a continent-spanning world power either, but I never see any "go back to the founders" people advocating changing that. You want a big, powerful nation, well, you're going to need a big, powerful government to go with it.

I don't recall asking for our government to be a "continent spanning world power."
As a matter of fact I happen to think that we need to become a bit more isolationist in our policies.
So here you go I am a "going back to our founders advocating that we worry about what happens here, more so than what goes on with the rest of the"global community".

I don't think that anarchy is ever completely possible, because as you said, if society collapses, people will convert to communes, and these communes will have laws, and those laws will form the basis of a community, so there'll always be laws. But, in theory, I think anarchy is better than government because it is impossible to police the police. Law is created in order to stop criminals. But what happens when the law enforcers become criminals? Then you need a higher law, a "supervisor" but what then happens when the supervisor becomes a criminal? Then you have the FBI or some other type of intelligence/covert op agency that is allowed to break the law in order to catch law breakers. This system has already become corrupted at this point so all the law really does is legalize crime. This is why anarchy is superior to government. There is already a perfect system of government in place, it's called nature, or universal laws, what used to be called "God's laws". Man's law will always be inferior to nature's law. Take gravity for instance, it's a law, you can't break gravity, unless you have the necessary thrust. But now look at man's law, supposedly unbreakable, "no one is above the law" but of course the law makers are above the law, they would have to be if they were to write the laws. Government is a superstition, a myth, it logically makes no sense, which is why there are so many problems with society.

Originally posted by mr. wildflowers
That's a good point. But what about, eg., hippie communes in the 60s and 70s? They had no set leaders, but functioned perfectly, with barely any trouble within. Couldn't we be like that, except on a much larger scale?

By the way, what's your profile pic? Lovecraft's Chtulu?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by mr. wildflowers]

Let's hope there is not another proliferation of hippie communes. My eldest sis is a school teacher in NY state. Many of her pupils are children from a local old commune. Many of the children are near carbon copies, most don't know who their Father is and the lot of them are under-developed, slow or mildly mentally retarded, and lacking in basic social skills. Because the adults of the commune have practiced open love for generations the children don't know who their cousins are. It bothers my sister to see so many children that have 'the odds' stacked against them.
I'm sure communal living can be a wonderful thing, but I would discourage Captain Acid from fathering any children, if you know what I mean.

Given our general intelligence level, we would probably only survive in small farming communities. Perhaps these communities could develop into towns and villiages... Eventually, they will turn into cities, states, countries, and eventually the whole thing will just repeat itself. Of course, we would have to play another game of survival of the fittest, generally, those that are used to living on the street, and those that are very rich/can afford protection, or who are very intelligent in a entrepreneurial sense (bartering foods, creating gangs etc etc) will be able to survive. After people start to die-off, perhaps after time small communities would be established, however they might come under the rule of the successful gangs that developed after the initial crisis. However, over time, as the urban areas start to decline, it will be the small subsistence farmers that would start to gain momentum, and eventually the gangs will eliminate each other through in-fighting, where most of the people alive will be in rural areas, or small pockets where subsistence farming exists. I would imagine that over time, peace might develop, but there will always be conflict, and in time, if civilisation rises again, it might just repeat the same mistakes that it made.