Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NoHierarchy
I think I may understand your point of view, I disagree with it, because I believe that humans are naturally predatory creatures and that humanity
would not survive without the rule of law.
You must clarify what you mean by "naturally predatory" and "rule of law". If you mean what I think you mean then you're more/less wrong on both
counts. First of all, humans are naturally GREAT predators. However, this does NOT mean that we are CONSTANTLY in search of something to kill (for any
reason). During prehistoric times, humans, as a whole, ate MOSTLY plants, nuts, seeds, etc. and supplemented this with some meat (sometimes depending
upon the culture/region). During modern times, MOST humans have NEVER killed anything larger than a mouse, let alone a human. We are not a naturally
violent species, this is a myth. We ARE capable of great violence and aggression, but this is NOT what we live for.
As for the "rule of law"... for over 90% of human history we did not live in societies of centralization, hierarchy, nation-states, or codified law.
Sure OF COURSE human society needs ORDER, we need certain codes of conduct, culture, and structure, but that BY NO MEANS equates to centralization or
hierarchy, especially of power/wealth.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in your perfect world view, people would be out for their own interests only and their impact on society be
First you are wrong in your use of the term "perfect". I do not believe in 100% perfection nor utopia. However, I DO believe that vast improvements
ARE possible. Also, in my world view, the opposite would be true- I believe that humans function best, freest, and most sustainably in localized
communities which are self-sufficient, in balance with ecosystems, and equal/egalitarian/communal. Of course a diversity of cultures/societies is
welcome so long as it promotes an OVERALL sustainable level for our species upon the biosphere. However, if you consider my world view then you will
quickly see that I do NOT support a cutthroat every-man-for-himself society which is based on utterly chaotic hedonism at the expense of others and
the natural environment. I advocate the opposite in conjunction with a dismantling of EXTREME (and thus unsustainable) structures of coercion, power,
ownership, food surplus, and wealth.
What you would end up with is an entire society like Detroit, St. Louis, Atlanta, Camden, & Washington, DC. People naturally band together for
security, this is the idea behind gangs.
First of all- NO. Second of all, there's something to be said about the appeal of gangs and the many things people LACK in our society which a group
identity/strength brings. Of course, a strong lack (and therefore desire) for group identity/security/victory/prosperity within our society can, and
obviously has, brought about some serious evils. My contention is that human groups can be organized in such a manner as to eschew and avoid the
violence/greed/stupidity/evils of gangs, hate-movements, jingoism, corporatism, militarism, mafias, organized religion, government, and so on. In fact
there are groups of humans throughout ALL (and most) of human history up to this very day that embrace quite peaceful, sustainable, and even noble
ways of life. For instance, band/tribal peoples throughout over 90% of human history and even up to this day, the Amish can certainly be included in
many respects, intentional communities, and any FREE/successful human interaction day-to-day that isn't dictated by centralized governance or
The Utopia of Anarchy can never exist because humans are naturally predatory, and territorial.
Once again this is false on many accounts. I do not (nor do most Anarchists) call for a Utopia. IN FACT, we acknowledge that humans will NEVER behave
"perfectly" and therefore we MUST reduce the tools/methods/structures which give humans such extreme amounts of power/wealth/effect over each other
and the environment. Regardless... humans certainly have tendencies towards being territorial, but this must be taken on a case-by-case basis with
full consideration for culture. For instance, many ancient cultures are NOT always violent to outsiders and instead embrace a policy of WELCOMING
outsiders and treating them as guests. I'm sure this changed over time, by necessity, for many cultures who HAD to adapt to a world being overtaken
by hierarchical civilization, which necessitates protectionism and a healthy fear of outsiders. Because let's face it... whenever civilization has
come into contact with other cultures, it has either served to annihilate, assimilate, or segregate them. In essence, I don't BLAME modern tribal
people for rejecting our civilization... they have every reason to fear and reject its presence considering the long, disgusting, bloody history of
Anarchy is my reality and YOUR reality EVERY TIME you interact with somebody else by your own free will and without any coercion/influence by "higher
powers" of government, economy, or religion. Most of our day to day interactions are more/less Anarchic, and we get along fine without intervention
by authority figures. We must largely REJECT the unquestioned notion that authority figures (above and beyond the rest of us) are necessary for a
peaceful, sustainable, and thriving society.
The reason that society works is because humans collectively decide what is acceptable and what is not, the problem in today's society is that
fewer and fewer are deciding what is acceptable for the masses.
What you fail to realize is that this is ALSO POSSIBLE in Anarchist societies. Humans have always behaved under self-defined codes of conduct,
cooperation, and order. However, most people blindly walk around with the notion that the ONLY thing that makes orderly, peaceful, surviving, thriving
society possible are the authority figures and MASSIVE structures of power/economics that exist today. This is a SERIOUSLY FLAWED perspective that
must be corrected. At the very least consider the long-term outlook for humanity- in our vision of the future either we will accept extreme
hierarchies of wealth/power or we wont. I believe that such hierarchies cause more exponential problems than they solve and therefore must be