Ask an Anarchist

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Small localized government and extremely small if even non-existant federal government.

All well and good until you want someone to fix the highway....

aint my responsibility...

That's exactly why this sort of system would not work today. There is no sense of comunity and owernship these days.

And that Highway would be fixed by the local government programs set up to take care of these sorts of things anyway.

~Keeper

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Phlynx

 

What you describe here is not an anarchist form of governance. It is actually more a non centralized republic with smaller forms of local governance.

Something like what the US is supposed to have.

A true anarchist state of governance would have absolutely no centralized governance with only small feudal or community organization. Even just a family or individual being the largest form of governance.

There are many different forms of Anarchism. It is hard to find just one, but I think my views fit in with Anarchism.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by Phlynx

 

The only authority I agree is the authority who has equal power and rights of the people. Someone like a blacksmith, or a parent. A lead engineer. They gain there authority they aren't given more rights than anyone else.

So then actually you are more of a meritocrat where authority is granted by demonstrated competence.

Kind of, but no one gets more say than the other. They have the same rights, but some get by farther because they are better at certain things.

Wait a minute here.

Anarchy can be used for a lot if different ideologies.
By definition it means without ruler.

For me this means there will not be a force or institute standing above you. We are all equals.
I think this does not mean they can be no basic agreements as a form of law.

I wouldn't think of killing my neighbour to steal his land. Anarchy usually includes a violence free, ideology.

My neighbour is my biggest ally, helping out. for mutual benefit.

Maybe the question that everybody has to ask first.
Why is anarchy such a strange word, being used for two opposite ideologies.

My experience is anarchy is usually put in the same context with chaos.
Usually adding a little warning or bad thing happening when anarchy is labeled.

Governments do not have a real scientific based reason for this.
A true anarchy based society has never existed.

They also don't want to loose their jobs of course.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yeah I agree totally.

We humans have to simply advance our minds to a point where we do not seek to harm each other or property.

This will take humans a LONG time though lol.

I believe that some of the more advanced aliens have their entire system set up along these lines though.

For it to work it has to be a collective effort at respecting each other. Something we humans just simply cannot achieve at this point, things have to change big time first.

How people survived in stone age. In present day rain Forests. It is the unity that makes you survive. There must be rules/law. But the application must be unbiased. Not favoritism. When the Government is bailing out their buddies on our expense. It cannot be acceptable. Or when Bush get away with crimes and small person go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread for survival. Wasn't it that Clinton do away with welfare for families and yet the welfare for big Corporation continued. No. This is not acceptable. Not every body is smart. But when you chose anachy or a Manager to Manage a groups necessities. Then that leader or manager must perform their duties per wishes of the people for the people. Even if that happens to be the President of the Country.

reply to post by Phlynx


The leftist impulse has been to re-distribute wealth, but this gesture is incapable of finding a higher value than that wealth. The conservative approach has been to attempt "Social Darwinism" which rewards those who are most morally correct and possess heightened business acumen, but because this morality and wealth potential are represented through external behaviors, has no room for the growth of souls or character. We are living in an illusion that denies both inner world (personality, soul) and outer (natural, physical) worlds, thus we are intraverted: between our bodies and our personalities we are trapped in a false social representation of self that leaves us alienated to a greater degree.
What is the anarchist take on this problem.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yeah !

We keep being unable to behave. What can you do ?

I think a lot of people are able to live in peace and love for there life and the community they live it.
Why keeping this from yourself if you feel like it ?
Because others ?

If mankind doe not Do what is right Then ther will never be change.
Their will always be those making others misseareble .

We are talking about proud and strong people living a live they think is their best choice.

We will protect ourselves and our choice. If it's nescessary.

I don't think it is a good idea, for anarchy being to intertwined with socialism.
Of course we as a community, should aide and help our. people.

This is not for some lazy ass bums, expecting. to be taking care of.

I will leave such a fool die in the gutter he ended in.
Anarchism also makes one responsible for his one life ways and everything.
Just because you #ed up does not mean you deserved to be saved.
This will also be the choice made by one who wants to.

Although you seem to mean well phlynx, i must admit that after reading your posts it seems you are most certainly not an anarchist, and dont even want a truly anarchistic way of life. (not attacking you just my opinion)

Anarchy from what i understand and invision is where every man (family), basically looks after themself, without authority, no leader and certainly no police force.
I dont think this could work in a 'modern' sense, think about going shopping in an anarchistic world, it would be chaos.
We would need to go 'back' a few steps (not necessarily a bad thing).
Each person would need theyre own piece of land to try and create theyre own self sustained living conditions, probably using techniques like permaculture and farming.

Also as others have stated you would need to have some sort of mutualy beneficial relationship with your neighbouring anarchists, possibly through the trade of supplies or some level of joint protection of eachother (you scratch my back i scratch yours). But like Sinter Klaas said:

This is not for some lazy ass bums, expecting. to be taking care of.

You would help your neighbours if in the future they would be able to return the favour, like wise, they would (hopefully) help you if you could later return the favour.

But honestly i dont think this will ever happen on a global, continental or regional scale, we are to much of a violent, short sighted species. But it does make an interesting discussion.

After sifting through all of your replies and tapping into my uncanny knowledge of political theory/philosophy I would have to say you are more of a Libertarian Socialist:

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form– whether economic, political, religious, or sexual– brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised."[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.[

en.wikipedia.org...

But since there are so many different political theories/philosophies that match what you advocate it would be hard for me to honestly say what you support. But I do know that it is a Libertarian/Anarchist ideology.

In anarchy, what will prevent power from falling into the hands of the few - people with resources, power, or charisma that are able to rally others around them, and then simply forming governments all over again?

Anarchy to me seems inherently unstable - how would it appear in a stable state?

reply to post by bob135


This is actually a problem related to all ideologies.

Take for example socialism.
For mankind it would be the ultimate way to live.
No poor, no rich, equal rights. Health care and the certainty you will always be cared for.

We all know how it blew up in their face.
Only because this can only be achieved when everybody agree and feel the same way. From the moment some sort of force must be used, it won't work.
Also stop using money. You don't need it, if you get to a point where there is a like minded society.

Human have to evolve and lose old instincts or gain the ability, not being controlled by them.

Or it will never happen.

People who team up. Will only get the chance to do so. After memory fades. For the reason why they chose this way of live in the first place.

What will never happen before we alter our state of mind as a community.

Wel it's just what I think.

Double post !

My bad !

[edit on 7/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I think some ideologies are more stable than others. There's certainly some degree of socialization that goes on in getting used to this system or that one. Europeans probably take many things for granted that Americans don't and vice versa. However I don't think attempting peaceful transfers of power and having representative government would quickly collapse in favor of other systems, while anarchy might.

I just don't see it as a question of "altering your state of mind." There are some things that you just have from birth - ambition, aggression, love, curiosity, etc. The best you can do is try to control these compulsions, but I just don't see any kind of anarchy that would prevent an ambitious charismatic individual from taking control.

That happens all the time in representative governments, but it's part of the plan (as long as he is voted into office), so representative government begets more representative government. Anarchy doesn't lead to continued anarchy.

reply to post by bob135


I completely agree with you're explanation.

Where a balance is a personal goal, it can only be expected to be an issue, for a government what is unbalanced, because of our differences.

Probably democracy is also a result of the need for balance.
It's the only way to keep the balance as close to the peoples differences to keep them glued together.
Less balance means more problems or even war, or a dictatorial way of ruling.
And thus the reason for it's certain demise in the future.

It is interesting to see a cycling of events happening.
History shows us perfectly how civilisation is under ongoing change.




[edit on 7/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

[edit on 7/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

here to all, this link may be helpful on describing what an anarchist is.
link:
dictionary.reference.com...