My Brief Summary Thesis on Anarchy

I'll admit, I am not sure where this goes or should go. It is meant to be read aloud. Yes there are flaws, but if I addressed them all I'd have too much to post so I'll leave it be. It is not particularly good, but I was in the mood to write, and this was of great interest to me. Written, about a year to a year and a half ago. Also the reason it's not in Short Stories is because I wanted to perhaps generate conversation. Ask questions, point out flaws, many of which I am aware and have responses to, but do not act aggressively or in some bad manner.

THESIS:

Anarchy is the idea of a society without permanent or official structure. The poor would not be poor or starving or homeless. The rich would not lead lives as kings or gods upon the less fortunate. Poverty would cease to exist in practice and the idea would die sooner. Homes would be available for all that desire a home, food would be available for all that desire food, water would be available to that desire water, and life would be irrevocable. Organizations would exist without structure, societies and communities would exist without government, and progress would exist without leaders leaning forward in anticipation for a new weapon to destroy their enemies and the world with. Indeed war would not exist. Birth rate would go down and the population would go down to its natural levels. Contact with other societies would be limited and the little contact that would exist would be on amiable terms seeing as one society may have something the second does not and vice versa, but neither would have more or less. Having different materials, technologies or services would lead to trade that generally benefits both societies. If both societies are equal in every aspect they will realize conflict will lead to death, and death to the fall of their societies. There will never be a superior or inferior society lest two or more societies join together to form a Super Society which ends the idea of anarchism and in which an empire or league is formed.

Every man, woman and child would do as they please. This does not mean that people forget about others, but that groups of people within a society would pick projects and occupations that would serve them. There would be no currency for which those that work upon a project in a society would be paid. That which they work upon; be it a farm, bridge, road, irrigation system, or wall would be their payment. This does not mean however that if a farm is built I may not receive food or that if a road is laid that I may not walk upon it or if a wall is constructed that I may not live within it if I did not work upon it. Imagine the five projects listed above created in a society each by different groups of people. The irrigation system benefits and allows for farms which means a stable population growth and greater distance to the farm, so a road is laid for easier travel and transport of farm goods; same with the bridge; and the walls protect the inhabitants and products of the farm from wildlife. Each project benefited or benefited from all the other projects.

Today many argue that only government can complete with success such projects. Instead individuals are capable of realizing of what would be beneficial for them and for the whole. What of safety? Murder and other such actions would go on as they always have; it is only natural. Government could not eliminate such things and neither will lack of government, but government reduces the number of ways we can protect ourselves whereas in anarchy all methods of protections are allowed besides organized vigilante groups, militias, armies or police forces which signify a government. Only those working together on a project such as a farm may combine forces for protection, but the moment the project is complete that combined force dissipates so as to prevent the formation of factions competing for power within a society. Meetings that do not discuss a single, specific project must include the entire society, even the infant and dying.

Religion too must be leaderless. No churches, mosques, synagogues or other altars may be created. Even in the home mother, father and child must pray individually and the beliefs of parent may not be spoken to children. The three primary masters of the human race must be removed: power in the form of government, religion and wealth. Remove government and everything is legal and everything is free and no longer can you look at a person; the leader of another societies government and be able to kill them all, look at each face. Remove religion and mankind is so similar and yet different. Remove wealth and currency, and social and class barriers are removed.

A world of individual societies made up of many individuals where everything benefits everyone. Versus the world that exists today, a world of individual societies made up of a single individual where the masses don't matter and where everything benefits few, though it's obscured to make you believe it benefits you. And you believe it! That new phone does not benefit you. It does not benefit the Chinese men, women and children that make it. It only benefits those few that get your money. But what do you care?! So long as you're comfortable. So long as you're shelter you won't care. You indoctrinated sheep believe government, religion, and currency are the only way for organization even though it's organization only benefit them! You're so blinded by shiny new toys that you don't care who it benefits or who it takes away from! Who cares about that China man as long as you have your new phone. Who cares about those children and their parents and families who don't have clean water so long as YOU have clean water. Who cares about the victims of some attack of war? You just care enough to blow all the rest that are of the same color or religion or nationality to pieces. You cry for LIFE, PEACE, AND LOVE, but all you do and ask of YOUR GOVERNMENT is DEATH, WAR, AND HATE. You cry for LIFE, PEACE, AND LOVE, but all you pray to YOUR GODS is for the DEATH of the "Enemy". You cry for LIFE, PEACE, AND LOVE, but you all pay taxes for the opposites; for DEATH, WAR, AND HATE. You never do realize killing back will lead to more killing? You just see the leader; all he gives you is crumbs, but you sheep adore him.

a reply to: Tiamat384

Is there any chance you could edit to break up the wall of text please? ATS is terrible for reading unparagraphed text especially with blackground?

a reply to: nonspecific

Will do.

Is that fine? That's how I originally meant to divide it. Failed to show the indents.

ANTITHESIS

originally posted by: Tiamat384
The poor would not be poor or starving or homeless.

The weak will be poor and starving and homeless, because those who are strong will take away from them whatever they had. In the absence of some sort of structure in society, who is going to stop them?

The rich would not lead lives as kings or gods upon the less fortunate.

They will if they are strong enough. Who is going to stop them?

Homes would be available for all that desire a home

Who builds them? Who stops the strong man from taking them away?

food would be available for all that desire food, water would be available to that desire water, and life would be irrevocable.

Who stops the strong man from ignoring all these demands?

Organizations would exist without structure, societies and communities would exist without government, and progress would exist without leaders

It won't happen. The way that people behave towards one another will be quite enough to break down any society. You are closing your eyes to the realities of human nature.

Indeed war would not exist.

Strong men will wage war on other people, with the help of whatever weapons they can put together.Who or what will be able to stop them? When a dozen men with knives are surrounding you, will the mantra "we have no governments now" be able to protect you?

Birth rate would go down and the population would go down to its natural levels

Why would it go down? "Once there are no governments, people will stop having sex?" How would that work?

Contact with other societies would be limited

What factor would limit contacts? How do you propose to stop people contacting other societies, especially in the absence of government?

and the little contact that would exist would be on amiable terms seeing as one society may have something the second does not and vice versa, but neither would have more or less.

How can you guarantee amiable contact, given that individuals are not always amiable?
What factors would prevent one society having more than another?

Every man, woman and child would do as they please.

"Every" is not logically possible, because it will please some people to do things that conflict with others doing what they please. THAT is why there is social friction and war, and removing government structures is not going to solve that.
A gang of men have just invaded your house and kicked you out into the snow? But that must be OK, because they are just "doing as they please".

This does not mean that people forget about others, but that groups of people within a society would pick projects and occupations that would serve them. There would be no currency for which those that work upon a project in a society would be paid. That which they work upon; be it a farm, bridge, road, irrigation system, or wall would be their payment. This does not mean however that if a farm is built I may not receive food or that if a road is laid that I may not walk upon it or if a wall is constructed that I may not live within it if I did not work upon it. Imagine the five projects listed above created in a society each by different groups of people. The irrigation system benefits and allows for farms which means a stable population growth and greater distance to the farm, so a road is laid for easier travel and transport of farm goods; same with the bridge; and the walls protect the inhabitants and products of the farm from wildlife. Each project benefited or benefited from all the other projects.

In the absence of structures, who organises all this, and what, if anything, can you do about people who refuse to take part?

Religion too must be leaderless. No churches, mosques, synagogues or other altars may be created. Even in the home mother, father and child must pray individually and the beliefs of parent may not be spoken to children.

You really haven't thought this through, have you? In the absence of "authority", how are those laws going to be enforced? When people build religious buildings and allow others to treat them as leaders, what are you going to do about it?

You are imagining a wonderful utopia, but merely abolishing governments is not going to get you there.
It will simply take us all into a nightmare world where the strong trample all over the weak without even the inadequate restraints which exist at the moment.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Quote: The weak will be poor and starving and homeless, because those who are strong will take away from them whatever they had. In the absence of some sort of structure in society, who is going to stop them?

Hmm, well, think of this way. Ok in today's world it is not possible. It would require a smaller human population. Smaller communities that should be under or at a thousand and with a decent amount of land. There wouldn't be travel by vehicle, unless you consider a horse a vehicle and I suppose a horse and carriage is a vehicle, but there wouldn't be major traveling. Well, the weak die. But that is only natural. Anarchy is order without structure correct, well then anarchy is living under nature's law. Which is survival of the fittest. So yes the weak will perish, but that is a population control mechanism. If that didn't make sense please let me know and I'll try to be more intelligible.

Quote: They will if they are string enough. Who is going to stop them?

Well I'll correct you, strong*, but if there are kings then it isn't that anarchy doesn't work as a system (let's call it that for the sake of argument), but rather that it has ceased to exist.

Quote: Strong men will wage war on other people, with the help of whatever weapons they can put together.Who or what will be able to stop them? When a dozen men with knoves are surrounding you, will the mantra "we have no governments now" be able to protect you?

Again correction, knives, note that's not attack, simply bothered me. Well, like I stated in my first response, the weak perish, but also. These 12 men, if they are of say, of the society and are armed forces with a leader, than anarchy has simply ceased to exist.

Quote: Why would it go down? "Once there are no governments, people will stop having sex?" How would that work?

Of course people wouldn't stop having sex. There could be even more than now. But birth rates would go down, because we would be at a baser level and more miscarriages would take place. Perhaps "birth rates" was the incorrect term for me to use.

Quote: What factor would limit contacts? How do you propose to stop people contacting other socities, especially i the absence of government?

This a hypothetical world with a severely reduced population that is spread out. There would be greater difficulty in contacting.

Quote:How can you guarantee amiable contact, given that individuals are not aways amiable? What factors would prevent one society having more than another?

True, not always amiable, but certainly there is always an agreement to be made. It is so easy for us to kill, because we don't see the faces of the individuals that we kill. By we, I mean of course our societies.

Quote: "Every" is not logically possible, because it will please some people to do things that conflict with others doing what they please. THAT is why there is social friction and war, and removing government structures is not going solve it. A gang of me nhave just invaded your house and kicked you out into the snow? But that must be OK, because they are just "doing as they please".

Well of course that is following the idea that Man is created evil. So I suppose the nature of Man would be answered.

Quote: In the absence of structures, who organises all this, and what, if anything, can you do about people who refuse to take part?

The people come together to realize that which is necessary or perish. Do you think those that do not contribute would be shared or liked? Of course not. The weak perish.

Quote:You really haven't thought this through, have you? In the absence of "authority", how are those laws going to be enforced? When people build religious buildings and allow others to treat them as leaders, what are you going to do about it? You are imagining a wonderful utopia, but merely abolishing governments is not going to get you there. It will simply take us all into a nightmare world where the strong trample all over the weak without even the inadequate restraints which exist at the moment.

I'm not going to answer that final quote directly, but it will be answered with this. The creation of authority whether in the form of organized religion, armed services, organized crime or kings then anarchy is dead. That is not something wrong with the "system", but rather mankind. Also I do realize this is wishful thinking, that this is nearly impossible. It is simply an idea of how it'd work. And also a complaint of modern society, of the egocentric world we live in. This is not my idea for the world today. Thank you for pointing out the flaws. I know they exist.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
"Who stops the strong taking away from the weak?"
Hmm, well, think of this way. Ok in today's world it is not possible. It would require a smaller human population.

We have had much smaller populations in the past, and yet the strong have ALWAYS been taking away from the weak.
This phenomenon is not caused by large populations. It is caused by the grasping and aggressive elements in human nature.

So yes the weak will perish, but that is a population control mechanism.

God, how smugly complacent you are in your ruthlessness!
Your utopia has suddenly turned into an endorsement of the dog-eat-dog approach to life.
Are you so confident, then, that you yourself are going to be amongst the strong, and that nobody else will come along and cut your throat in the name of population control?
In any case, it is more likely that the weak will not die, but will live in misery under subjection, so your vision won't work even as "population control".

if there are kings then it isn't that anarchy doesn't work as a system (let's call it that for the sake of argument), but rather that it has ceased to exist.

OK. But there will undoubtedly be strong men who will impose themselves on others, so pure anarchy will undoubtedly cease to exist.
The only result will have been that the attempt to achieve it will have plunged the world into a more intense state of nightmare.

These 12 men, if they are of say, of the society and are armed forces with a leader, than anarchy has simply ceased to exist.

Then, as I said before, anarchy WILL cease to exist.

But birth rates would go down, because we would be at a baser level and more miscarriages would take place.

Again, you are demonstrating a smug complacency about human misery, and I'm puzzled to know how this conforms with the apparent benevolence of your original proposal.

Well of course that is following the idea that Man is created evil. So I suppose the nature of Man would be answered.

Yes indeed, and historical observation leads to the same conclusion.
I see you have come to accept the point that human nature itself is the root of the problem, and that the only solution is "finding an answer to " human nature.
You should therefore accept the corollary that there is NO POINT in abolishing government as a solution, because the solution will not work as long as human nature in its present form remains intact.
In fact, as we have jointly established, the attempt to bring about anarchy will be short-lived and will succeed only in increasing the sum of human misery.

The people come together to realize that which is necessary or perish. Do you think those that do not contribute would be shared or liked? Of course not. The weak perish.

But the unco-operative will probably be the strong, so they won't perish. They will just wait until the others have finished, and then seize control of the benefits.

I'm not going to answer that final quote directly, but it will be answered with this. The creation of authority whether in the form of organized religion, armed services, organized crime or kings then anarchy is dead. That is not something wrong with the "system", but rather mankind. Also I do realize this is wishful thinking, that this is nearly impossible.

Why do you insert the word "nearly"?

And also a complaint of modern society, of the egocentric world we live in.

Then you're complaining about human nature. So complain about human nature, instead of dragging in the irrevelant and unworkable suggestion of establishing anarchy.
The reason why I am so vigorous about pointing out the flaws in the "anarchy will bring utopia" theory is that there are people sufficiently convinced by it to apply all their efforts to bring down government and bring anarchy into existence.
Then there is the nightmare possibility that they will succeed, if only in the short term, and plunge the world into the state of misery which would be the natural consequence.
That is why those evil idiots ought not to be encouraged.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Sadly I am a bit under the weather to fully respond, though it seems that your response is filled with emotion and it tends to be that emotion creates irrationality. No I do not think I'd be in that minority to survive. No it is not my vision, something you'd know if you read the end of reply to your previous comment. I said it's an idea for how anarchy would work. Anarchy requires of course some factors that I fail to see in mankind. So I am not smug, though you call me so, and I do not find this just. Of course anarchy would cease to exist. The same like every form of government and everything else. Everything ends. I'm not smug about it. I'm not complacent about death, but I do not need to explain myself. No, who shares with those that do not contribute. And I inserted "nearly" because yes it is nearly impossible. Utopia? No anarchy would not bring utopia. Never once stated. Who are you calling an idiot, hmm?

Next time leave emotion out. Thank you. This is not my vision. Also I was young when I wrote this. I know my vision for today, and that was never it.

Anarchy can not last long. Someone will rise up and people will fall into line before they even realize what they are doing.

a reply to: calstorm

Of course. Never claimed it could. I have no faith that it could work. Just an idea of how it could possibly work.

I cannot recall who said that the best government is the one that we don't need. Here's the unofficial anthem of anarchism:
Spygeek may not agree with me but maybe this may be a bit of help...

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva
Spygeek? Anyways that is a great song for what anarchy is. I'll have to watch the video later though. So do you consider yourself an anarchist?

a reply to: Tiamat384
I thought I'd start a running joke with spygeek from another thread... nevermind. Me an anarchist?... uh, we also have a don't ask don't tell policy.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva
You got to be kidding me....whatever man. Who's spygeek.
Actually whatever.

I'm an anarchist but it's not practical as a long term solution and isn't sustainable; it's simply a reset button for civilisation. Minarchism would inevitably evolve from it in an organic way through necessity and we'd eventually end up somewhere like we are now, although hopefully having created something a bit better and fairer.

a reply to: MagnaCarta2015

In part I agree. Seeing human nature, anarchy is a reset point. Though we do need to reset.

a reply to: Tiamat384
I apologize for the levity. What I consider myself to be is not important, bottom line is they are just labels we adopt. What's more important is what we do or what our intentions are among others.

Lighten up. For all I know, I could be just an a**hole.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

True. Everything is a label. And yet often those labels in some way define how we behave. On the other hand. It's a much smaller effect on behavior than it might be logical.

Vive l'anarchie!