It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anarchy - can it be controlled?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Just been having an interested debate with shorty and UK Wizard about anarchy (it came up in the UKIP thread). I believe that anarchy cannot be controlled due to anarchy ideology being based around no government, laws,etc so the very idea of controlled anarchy is impossible.
If you inforce laws on a anarchy state, its no longer anarchy, its a democracy,etc.

So how can you control something that doesnt wish to be controlled?

impossible in my eyes.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
True anarchy cant be controlled but anarchy at some form can be. Anarchy is in part a belif in freedom of expression. So controlloed anarchy is freedom to express yourself providing you dont brake any laws. Mabe a better name than CA would be CE controlled expression. Expression can be controlled. Expression is a part of anarchy so it makes a more diluted form of anarchy. Which i will call controlled expression, rather than controlled anarchy.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by shorty]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
As i said in the other thread,
CA or CE has another term and thats democracy, so its not anarchy.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Yes but it wouldn't necessarily be a democracy. Democracy is controlled by voteing and a majority opinion. CE may not be controlled by democracy. CE in my mind is differant to democracy, demcorcracy is control by the majority CE is controlled by nobody it is controlled by everybody but not like a democracy.

Of course voteing Ect would be controlled by a mojority vote not by anything else, there is no other way of makeing it fair.

Law would be controlled by a set of guide lines rather than law. For instance some people will want me hung for this but its my opinion. Drug use wouldn't be against the law because of the freedom of expression but murder and robberary and that sort would be harshly punished.

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by shorty]

[Edited on 5-10-2004 by shorty]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I agree. By definition, true anarchy can't be controlled. Once you have some sort of control, it's no longer anarchy. You can't vote in an anarchy, because there's no rules that say the votes matter.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You have to remember that you are viewing the concept of anarchy through your social/cultural tainted-goggles. True anarchy involves taking complete responsibility for your actions with preemptive considerations to the repercussions of those actions. This is something that very few (if any) do in our types of societies.

Now would the vast majority of the members of this site be able to peacefully exist in an anarchical society? I believe most definitely not. Why? Because most also manifest visions of violence and bands like the Sex Pistols when discussing anarchy, but such is not the case.

We are led to believe that anarchy is a horrible thing because it is threatening to the 'reality' that we know. More precisely it is threatening to the form of governments in which we live. Thus it is always mumbled in with a negative tone.

IMHO, anarchy is most simply described as existence without supervision. This means without the regulations and controls of a higher group body, i.e. structural government. Without someone to describe and dictate right from wrong, good from bad; without someone to hold your hand and spank you into remembering the rules and guidelines. Quite simply put, anarchy is a way of life in which you have to take responsibility for yourself and your own actions without the convenience of a master to decide what the moral and ethical guidelines of acceptable behavior for you are or a scapegoat by which to not bother oneself by thinking for themselves.

A society of anarchists is the only true free society. Why? It is because when you realize that you can do anything you want you have true freedom, but with this true freedom comes the sense of responsibility of what you should do and what you would wish others to do to you. A communal harmony is struck because of ones respect for that freedom as well as the respect felt for others, who like them, also take responsibility for their freedom. You dont harm your neighbor because you do not wish them to harm you. Not because it is what someone else tells you is wrong/right and enforces appropriately, but because it is the responsible thing for a free person to do.

One of the truest sayings that I have ever seen was spray-painted on an NYC subway wall and it should be the motto of all true anarchist.

The only thing you ever HAVE to do is deal with the consequences of your actions.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
So infinite would you say you agree with my last idea a state of CE inside of a democrical government.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
So how can you control something that doesnt wish to be controlled?


Crap! I answered the question in my head again and not the one put forth. Hey, it's been a long day!

As may be alluded in my prior post, a harmony in this type of society is struck, not because the society itself is controlled by an organized force, but rather because the individual exhibits control over themselves through their actions, inactions and reactions.

Anarchy does not mean disorder, but instead freedom. The freedom of self-responsibility.

[edit on 5-10-2004 by Jonna]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   


The only thing you ever HAVE to do is deal with the consequences of your actions.


Incorrect. You also have to deal with the consequences of my actions.

I don't believe I have 'tainted goggles' on, I just don't believe anarchy can survive for a sustainable amount of time. In anarchy, everyone goes about doing his own thing. Say Bob has a cow. Tom, Joe, and Larry want the cow for themselves. Bob doesn't want to share with these unsavory fellows. So Tom, Jow, and Larry simply kill him and take the cow for themselves. Eventually, the other men who own cows will band together to fend off the cow-thieves. And thus we have the beginnings of a society.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I don't believe I have 'tainted goggles' on,


This is not ment as an insult so please do not take it as such. We all need to realize and overcome the fact that our morality, values and sense of what is right and what is wrong effects the way that we perceive what we witness. We do not see a 'pure event/phenomenon' as much as we filter it through our senses and then our concepts/ideals of what it 'means'. This taints the original phenomenon and so clarifies my tainted-goggles comment.

I was having an interesting conversation the other day about mail order brides. I was asked what I thought about the individuals that ordered them. To this I responded that it seemed as if the orderer could possibly have a self esteeme problem to believe that there wasn't someone out there that could possibly love them for them.

In the course of the conversation, I thought about certain countries where the children were married off by their parents. So what is the difference? On one hand we have an individual that was paying for a wife and the wife that was receiving compensation (either monotery or a better way of life in another country). On the other hand we have parents that are buying a wife for their son and the parents of a wife that are receiving a dowery in return for the services of their daughter. Is there really that much difference?

The problem I realized was my tainted goggles. I was assuming (because of my social and cultural norms) that the reason to marry was for love. Each person is seeing the phenomenon through their social/cultural tainted goggles. Their own values, morals and means/ends. What is exceptable and what is not. Is one really better then the other? Ultimately it depends on who you ask. Both have a means and an end wheither we see them as having validity or not.



I just don't believe anarchy can survive for a sustainable amount of time. In anarchy, everyone goes about doing his own thing. Say Bob has a cow. Tom, Joe, and Larry want the cow for themselves. Bob doesn't want to share with these unsavory fellows. So Tom, Jow, and Larry simply kill him and take the cow for themselves. Eventually, the other men who own cows will band together to fend off the cow-thieves. And thus we have the beginnings of a society.


Please see my first post. You are assuming that people that do not take responsibility for their actions could function in an anarchal society and you are correct as they can not. The problem is not the society, but the individuals acting as individuals in a society where as we tend to see the problem in most governed societies as the fault of our governments and not the indivduals. This is because the individuals in these governed societies hand over their independence and freedom (their self-responsibilities, self-governing and individualities) to the governmental body to make the decisions for them.

The difference is that of the great ocean being made up of drops of water and those individual drops of water coming together to create a great ocean.

Are you the ocean or an individual drop of water?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Incorrect. You also have to deal with the consequences of my actions.

I don't believe I have 'tainted goggles' on, I just don't believe anarchy can survive for a sustainable amount of time. In anarchy, everyone goes about doing his own thing. Say Bob has a cow. Tom, Joe, and Larry want the cow for themselves. Bob doesn't want to share with these unsavory fellows. So Tom, Jow, and Larry simply kill him and take the cow for themselves. Eventually, the other men who own cows will band together to fend off the cow-thieves. And thus we have the beginnings of a society.


Exactly. When humans interact on a regular basis for any reason, rules will establish themselves based on what works or can be made to work, the first being rules being those that govern communication. True anarchy isn't possible for humans for any significant length of time. "Controlled" Anarchy, by definition is no longer anarchy but something else.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna

This is not ment as an insult so please do not take it as such.


Oh, I didn't don't worry.


Please see my first post. You are assuming that people that do not take responsibility for their actions could function in an anarchal society and you are correct as they can not. The problem is not the society, but the individuals acting as individuals in a society where as we tend to see the problem in most governed societies as the fault of our governments and not the indivduals. This is because the individuals in these governed societies hand over their independence and freedom (their self-responsibilities, self-governing and individualities) to the governmental body to make the decisions for them.

I agree, but I don't see how that makes what I said any less pertinent. Anarchy is an idea, one which I don't believe that can be sustained in the world. If people are going to live together (and they well, as per above), you're going to have lots of different beliefs. So what if everyone takes responsibility for their actions?

Let's say Bob steals Sue's hankerchief, because he wanted it and she wouldn't give it to him. He take full 'responsiblity' for his actions- He did it for completely selfish reasons. However, whaddaya gonna do? Sue can force him to give the hankerchief back, but then he'll just take it back, and it will be a never-ending cycle until someone decides to do something more drastic. Sue gets tired of not having her hankerchief and puts a knife in Bob's back. Well, now, she takes full responsiblity for that as well.

But whaddaya gonna do? Obviously Sue has shown that she will kill if it fits her interests. You don't ever want t get on her bad side. But now, you're not making Sue take responsibiltiy for her actions, since she is making you act in a way you don't want to.

What you can do is make up a set of rules that everyone follows. That way, you know what to do when two people's "responsibilities" collide. Otherwise, I have no reason to respect your freedom.

The difference is that of the great ocean being made up of drops of water and those individual drops of water coming together to create a great ocean.

Are you the ocean or an individual drop of water?

I'm an H20 molecule floating around. When I'm in the ocean, I'm part of the ocean. When I'm in a drop of water, I'm a part of a drop of water.

I have a question for you-In an anarchsit society, what's going to happen when there's a bad winter and there is only enough food to feed half of the people?

[edit on 10-5-2004 by Esoterica]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica


The only thing you ever HAVE to do is deal with the consequences of your actions.


You also have to deal with the consequences of my actions.


Absolutely true! But please realize the context in which I was refering too. An anarchal society is one in which all individuals take complete responsibility for their actions. Thus it is communal in a way that is often unrealized with the pre-conceived notion of anarchy. To put it quite simply, when I do no wrong to you because I am responsible with my freedom, you have respect enough for me and yourself that you do no wrong to me because of the same reasons and vice versa.

This concept of society is alien to most of us and thus difficut to grasp. That is not to say that you or anyone else is unable to understand this concept, but it is so far out of the context by which we define social reality, that we do not take it into consideration.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   


That is not to say that you or anyone else is unable to understand this concept, but it is so far out of the context by which we define social reality


It also goes against nature IMO.

In the winter scenario mentioned above, my guess is that the stronger people would survive either by being strong enough to keep thier food or by being strong enough to steal the food they need to survive.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   
A true Anarchy would have no control and everyone would be responsible for their own actions... Unfortunately, a true anarchy will never be possible with humans as only a certain number of us could actually live like this, with no-one controlling you and you controlling no-one. Generally there are always people who like to lead and will lead, and those who like to follow (which is the majority of us to a certain extent)...

As soon as anarchy was instilled there would be rival gangs and tribes with leaders and followers which in time would build into communities and evolve into societies with functional governments.

I still think a form of anarachy would be the best way to live, but true anarchy could not be possible as rules would always be forged to keep order. I.E. do not kill without good reason, do not steal from your fellow tribesmen, do not instill your will upon others... these are all rules, and if put in place in a Anarchistic society would stop the society from being a true Anarchy



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I think of anarchy of a situation in where a specific region of land does not have an organized government.

But regardless... it is human nature to be social.. even in the middle ages you had people serving under maybe a "Lord". People always will join together under a leader.

You always have those cults all around the world which talk of how they want "anarchy". These are the same people that have grown up in a structured society and probably wouldn't like an "anarchist" state.

Look at any country in this world, maybe Somalia... that country is pretty as close to anarchy as you can get.. with people serving under warlords.. all you get from it is death and destruction because you will have a group of people who will wish to control everything.

I pefer a structured society like in the world today.. because all you get from anarchy is death and destruction. People always will form governments.. it is human nature.


[edit on 5-10-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 5-10-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I like chaos and lack of order, i dont like to lead, and i dont like to follow, i juts like to do my own thing...

But i know a true Anarchy wouldnt work out so i would like a partial anarchy with very loose laws in place



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
Unfortunately, a true anarchy will never be possible with humans as only a certain number of us could actually live like this, with no-one controlling you and you controlling no-one.


Sadly, this is true in a sense. Not that it is impossible, but it would be quite difficult to filter out all the people that are unable to live outside of their governments, pre-formed ideas, reality matrix, etc. However, again we are speaking about people that have developed within this closed and diseased system. What would the viable possibilities be if we did not submit to this preconceived notion of reality? I am no different from you in this aspect. I am trapped within the confines of the peramitors of my own mind. The self-defined cage which I call Self. Ironic isn't it. Still, I can dream of a better way.

As for the starving in winter comments, I am a bit bewildered! Where is the purpose or reasoning in this question? What are you attempting to poke at? In an anarchal society, you take care of yourself just as you take responsibility for yourself. Same thing. Are you insinuating that a democracy is better because when a homeless person has not planned for the winter that they are taken off the street by their government and taken care of?

Further more as for the 'Bob wants a cow, Bob kills for the cow' like comments, I can only plead with you to one last time take off your goggles! You are assuming that if you had true freedom that you would also not have the responsibility to handle that freedom. Perhaps most would not because they are looking for the cheap and easy path, but I do believe that some would actually be responsible individuals. Maybe I am just being hopeful again in believing that the human race is worth more respect then it appears to be, but again I can hope that it will someday prove me wrong in believing that it is not.

I do not wish to be someone's savior nor do I wish to be saved. I will give respect when it is earned and I will take care of my own. I am the me that I believe myself to be because I am I. That's the long and short of it.



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I feel i could adapt to an anarachiac society, as currently i live by my own rules... the ones that make sense to me (except for those laws with serious penalties behind them, i'm also smart enough to know how to avoid getting in serious trouble), and i look after those who i deem need and deserve it... I think anrachy is the best option for the world, but the world would have to embrace the chaos and lack of formal control this would instill... pity that most humans have this comfort zone of being led and looked after... life would be alot more fun if we werent like that



posted on Oct, 6 2004 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
I feel i could adapt to an anarachiac society, as currently i live by my own rules. I think anrachy is the best option for the world, but the world would have to embrace the chaos and lack of formal control this would instill.


I would like to believe that I could as well, but never being put in that situation it is all just conjecture. Funny thing is that I do not see it as chaos, but rather as self-organiztion in a communal sense.

You are correct though in assuming that the world is not ready for such freedom. Hopefully we, as a whole,will not destroy ourselves before we are ready.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join