Anarchy Would Be Good

Anarchy summed up:
"And here I am like a sucker trying to romance a girl into giving me her goodies."

Society is based on consequences..in an anarchy, there is no consequences so long as you have the biggest gun in the neighborhood.

anarchy is impossible anyhow...the second a state reaches that, it immediately becomes a tyrannical lordship based on whomever has the most weapons and control...then you no longer are under a civil rights based society, your enslaved by John the warlord and his gang of rapist/murderer/thieves.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anarchy would NOT be good for most people. Know why? I'll give you two big reasons ...

1 - Those who are ill or chronically ill. Anarchy means no medicines. No antibiotics. No insulin. No heart medications. No bloodpressure medications. No way to have operations. Women would die in childbirth. Chronically ill people (like me) would suffer insane pain. A simple tooth infection, that can be taken care of now by a root canal and antibiotics, would kill you if anarchy was going on.

2 - Financial collapse means most people in the USA would be beyond poor. Food production and delivery would stop. Nearly everyone would starve to death. Poor countries that depend on us for food and medicine - like in Africa - would be wiped clean of people. All dead.

Anarchy means MASSIVE numbers of dead.
There are 7 billion people on this planet now.
Almost all would die .. either of starvation, infection, freezing to death, or for lack of medical help.

You are confusing Anarchy with chaos. Anarchy means 'without government' it doesn't have to be a bad thing unless you just crave someone telling you what to do. People don't have to be led around like sheep and sheared at the behest of psychotic bureaucrats with guns.

Anarchy, defined as the absence of government, might work in a Utopian society where:

• There is perfect universal agreement about what constitutes fairness in the society.
  
• Nobody ever behaves "unfairly".
  
• Nobody ever attempts to rule over anyone else.

Governments have evolved over the millenia because real societies don't work like that. There is never agreement about what is "fair", so legislative bodies evolved to create sets of rules. Then, real people don't behave perfectly according to the rules. Some people behave badly much of the time and most people behave badly at least once in a while. So, police and courts have evolved to deal with real and perceived "unfairness". Last, just as Nature Abhors a Vacuum, political nature abhors political vacuum. Ruling others creates advantages for a ruler. So, governmental systems have evolved that define and limit the powers of rulers.

Anarchy would be good? Yes because the average person is so law abiding and decent. Because people would behave even without laws. We don't need laws no one would ever do anything wrong right? If the world continues on it's present course, you just might get your anarchy, but I guarantee it will not be as you had envisioned.

reply to post by Detergent


Wrong, you have some romanticized notion of Anarchy in mind.

Most hunter-gatherer societies were what Marx & Engels called primitive communism which had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation. This was a form of Anarchy.

Other real life examples would be the Paris Commune of 1871 and Anarchist Catalonia, both displayed forms of direct democracy and common ownership over the means of production.

There is no need to assume that Anarchy would be Utopian or that humans would be transformed into angels.

Anarchy is not the absence of law. Anarchy does not mean chaos. I may not be an anarchist but I at least take the time to understand what I critique.

And after Anarchy becomes the norm and we are tired of might makes right we will come back to where we are today and the cycle continues.

reply to post by theovermensch


True capitalism is possible only in capitalism or free market - not state controlled market.
Anarchy for ever - read Homage to Catalonia and also The Parable Of The Tribes by Andrew Schmookler (A new look at how the history of civilization may have been largely shaped by the raw struggle for power between societies)

reply to post by yaluk


Precisely!

The community groups soon amalgamate, become regional groups...then a national group...and ladies and gentlemen: its Government time.

reply to post by theovermensch


In anarchy, people die when those that don't want anarchy kill those who do.

And by proxy, those that don't are more numerically, and have the upper hand.


Also, any sort of cooperation is, by default, not anarchy.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anarchy would NOT be good for most people. Know why? I'll give you two big reasons ...

1 - Those who are ill or chronically ill. Anarchy means no medicines. No antibiotics. No insulin. No heart medications. No bloodpressure medications. No way to have operations. Women would die in childbirth. Chronically ill people (like me) would suffer insane pain. A simple tooth infection, that can be taken care of now by a root canal and antibiotics, would kill you if anarchy was going on.

2 - Financial collapse means most people in the USA would be beyond poor. Food production and delivery would stop. Nearly everyone would starve to death. Poor countries that depend on us for food and medicine - like in Africa - would be wiped clean of people. All dead.

Anarchy means MASSIVE numbers of dead.
There are 7 billion people on this planet now.
Almost all would die .. either of starvation, infection, freezing to death, or for lack of medical help.

I do see your point here, and seeing that you would be one of the people affected by this because lack of meds... I really do feel for you... I do. But humanity has done away with natural selection, in the western world anyway. I see this as a serious threat to the future generations. Natural selection is the process of weeding out the weak so the strong can survive. But what happens when the weak are out breeding the strong?

The over all gene pool is being deluted to a point where I don't think we will ever see another Einstein, Sagan, Tesla, etc, etc. I'm not one of those "i'm better than you people". In fact I had a hernia at the age of 21 and would probably have been dead by 23 if it wasn't for modern medicine.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

I guess that is the biggest problem. If the transition hurts people it wouldnt be worth doing.

I dont think it could happen unless most were convinced so I dont think a lack of planning would be an issue. I would like us to all revolt tomorrow but I know thats not realistic. If a move to a more libertarian/anarchist world does happen I think it will be smooth because we will decide to do it.

I want to "burn it" but not with fire.

I think my lack of much sentimental feelings in relation to human life confused my argument.

I think the only ones that would turn to violence under a libertarian socialist utopia would be the insane. Because we would all have our needs met. There would be no need for crime.

And I do know the things I want are idealistic and somewhat of a 'purity experiment' but I am at the point that I want to roll the dice. I know others disagree and have solid arguments against. And that libertarian socialism sounds pretty crazy to some.

# sorry for lack of courtesy to other members. I can be defensive (:

Just what is it that you would revolt against? It is said that until a population drops below 800 calories of food intake per day you will not see a revolt. That is something tangible, but to revolt against basically abstract things like evil banks, rich people, and or the government one needs to actually have true physical hardship directly tied to these things.

But let's say 300 million people did revolt...wouldn't that be a fun day.... vast majority of America out of work, a standstill to just about everything, stock market crashes, EVERYONE with savings that is not in a shoe box is penniless, I can assure you we would then see, very shortly, people with a calorie intake below 800 per day.

What type of Phoenix would come out of those ashes... Anarchy? We would bury ourselves then the world would bury what was left.........

Originally posted by yaluk
And after Anarchy becomes the norm and we are tired of might makes right we will come back to where we are today and the cycle continues.

Except we would be speaking Chinese....

Originally posted by theovermensch


I think the only ones that would turn to violence under a libertarian socialist utopia would be the insane. Because we would all have our needs met. There would be no need for crime.

Needs that would be dictated to you whether you like them or not.....China after their rise of their industrial age and Communism comes to mind. Choices were gone and so was the value of a life since they starved/killed 100 million to reach that new age of theirs, but hey here is your 3 bowls of daily gruel, and here is you 50x50 room where you and your family will live (if we decide you can have a family) and this is what you will do the rest of your life....

Does total anarchy itself exist and does anarchy necassarily mean anarchy. I have contemplated the collapse of financial history and have even wished that somthing destructive were to happen. I get a good sensation when I see symbols of consumerism destroyed (i.e. the massive supercar pileup in Japan made me smile). But is anarchy the natural human state. Out of a state of anarchy would arise groupings of individuals who would inevitably form there own systems of governence. After billions of earths people die we may see groups of nomads and hunters in small familly clans which would eventually grow and then need to settle, they would grow into towns and then cities, in the end we would have city states at war which would grow into states and we would continue to evolve similar to a system of a globalized society that we have today. I don't think anarchy would ever last, humans are organisational creatures.

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
I don't think anarchy would ever last, humans are organisational creatures.

I agree and we are not very nice too.

We have always been a pack mentality even today. If we do not see commonality then we create it..."how about them bears..."

We would break into small groups that would form larger groups that might create States and then those States might get together and form a Union...wouldn't that be different...

Anarchy is great until it affects YOU.

People calling for anarchy don't understand what it truly means. No rule of law. No organization. It's not even survival of the fittest.

It's chaos applied to people. You don't REALLY want anarchy. You just want to be free of "the man".

reply to post by theovermensch




yeah noo it would not be good

reply to post by Xtrozero

Text Just what is it that you would revolt against? It is said that until a population drops below 800 calories of food intake per day you will not see a revolt. That is something tangible, but to revolt against basically abstract things like evil banks, rich people, and or the government one needs to actually have true physical hardship directly tied to these things. But let's say 300 million people did revolt...wouldn't that be a fun day.... vast majority of America out of work, a standstill to just about everything, stock market crashes, EVERYONE with savings that is not in a shoe box is penniless, I can assure you we would then see, very shortly, people with a calorie intake below 800 per day. What type of Phoenix would come out of those ashes... Anarchy? We would bury ourselves then the world would bury what was left.........

I was just throwing you a bone hey.

You are an alarmist and you should do some more reading on Chomsky.

You obviously know nothing about it.

reply to post by FIFIGI


Thanks hey,I will put the book on my list.

And I think true capitalism would be ok if everyones needs were met.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by theovermensch


I think the only ones that would turn to violence under a libertarian socialist utopia would be the insane. Because we would all have our needs met. There would be no need for crime.

Needs that would be dictated to you whether you like them or not.....China after their rise of their industrial age and Communism comes to mind. Choices were gone and so was the value of a life since they starved/killed 100 million to reach that new age of theirs, but hey here is your 3 bowls of daily gruel, and here is you 50x50 room where you and your family will live (if we decide you can have a family) and this is what you will do the rest of your life....

McCarthyist.

We are talking about Anarchism/Libertarianism/Socialism.

China are communist/state capitalist. You only confuse things with your hysterical alarmist linking of Anarchism to communism.

As far as China goes I dont think its perfect. I am constantly surprised by how many Chinese support their government. They remind me of Americans. But I think the Chinese government and its people have more sense than Americans. I just think China has done its best to survive in an Imperial Empire. I think it is awesome that China has risen above the United States as the only true superpower. They beat America at its own game and they did it against the odds.

You are on a sinking ship.