"Anarchy could never work. The world will plunge into chaos. Humans need someone to oversee them."
This is the same mantra I have been hearing over and over again for as long as I can remember. Now, I am not going to that some form of organization is not needed in order for society to function. This is rather irrelevant. The point here is that anarchy already exists. In fact, it has existed for as long as our species have created civilizations 6.000 year ago. It has been working just fine. Just not all of us get to enjoy it.
We often wonder why people sitting in government offices get to do whatever they want. We wonder how and why big corporations and government officials always seem to be in bed with one another. Yet, after all the shit we are witnessing taking place in front of our eyes, we just say "It is what it is, and we need the government to protect us".
Anarchy has been working for government and corporatist officials alike. They are doing whatever they want, propagating to the rest that we need their order in order to survive. The people whom we accuse of so many things are the proof that anarchy works. They are not bound by their own rules. They create the rules for the rest. They control how rules are perceived and they have convinced everyone else that they have to follow rules while themselves get to stand above of it all.
And we have accepted this. We understand that this is how it is done. We understand that this is how they get to be in control. Yet, the statists and anarchy skeptics alike are being intellectually dishonest. Based on their assumption, those who control everything we eat, drink, hear and see are living anarchically. Effectively the entire world is ruled by chaos. They guide humanity based on their own whims for their own benefit and they don't even follow their own rules. Why do we possibly want them to control us other than a primal tribal instinct of group survivorship? What is the argument other than fear?
Why do we claim to be civilized living in a world of order when in fact everything has always been structured under seeming order? A lion tears a zebra apart. The world is orderly from its own perspective. Every lion is doing it right?
A politician changes a single policy and we suddenly have to send our children to a public schools for 15 years. Everyone is doing it. This is how things are. This is order, right? Anything else is chaos since every parent will be able to do whatever they want with their child and that scares the shit out of us. It never crosses our minds that the anarchic folk on top control the school system and they do whatever they want. It never crosses around minds that many children under state rule become mercenaries killing other human being. We are just afraid that homeschooling mind hard a child because parents are....irresponsible.
This hypocritical narrative applies to everything that comes from the government. We assume that chaotic communal practices are orderly because many people follow them and that they are "controlled" and "regulated". Anything else becomes chaos. This is the reason why religion is so important to us. The anarchic leaders on top that created these feel-good-and-fearful-stories give a sense of order to our lives. Same applies as with the presence of a government. We see some "references" from yet another anarchic authority that they have created and suddenly everything stops feeling "chaotic" and becomes "orderly".
It's not gonna happen. We are just too lazy, way too lazy.
I completely agree
It's not that we are lazy, its just that people tend to pick the better solution. If the structure of co-existence based on anarchy is created and better yet already working for someone somewhere other societies will adopt it. You can't expect people to give up there commodity, they worked so hard to get it. That ties with the last said in the post. People just don't want to think about "unnecessary" things. We gave up our freedom for a piece of mind. I touch upon that topic a bit in my recent post about our great alienation from the world. If you are interested check it out:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@drumsta/the-great-alienation
I doubt anarchy is a better option. The real issue is that we are blinded by our political and religious beliefs and majority of humans are good followers. For this majority to survive in a anarchist society will be hard and will result in violence.
There is plenty of anarchy in places like Africa and Syria. Do I want that type of society? No. Wishing for a free just society is still the best hope for me.
You are confusing anarchy with disorder. Anarchists societies can and likely would be ordered. The order, however, would develop at a small scale based on the interactions of individuals.
Additionally, how would those who decide to follow people be hard pressed to live in a stateless society? Would they not simply follow other individuals?
The issue with the blind followers is that they lack the experiences and the effective judgement to evaluate their responses. It gets hard to scale anarchy. The best we can hope for individualist anarchy driven by intellectuals to help advance the creation of a just society.
In your ideal, the less capable or willing would still be following the lead of the so-called intellectuals. I don't see how what you are proposing is any different than my comment. There will always be people - probably a majority - that would rather go along to get along. It doesn't matter if there is a state or no state. That shouldn't deter anti-statists. If, when the dust settles, a majority want to just follow the lead of their local notables, so what? The key is that there is no coercive state, not that everyone is uniquely individualistic. That is an impossible goal - that turns anarchism into some sort of messianic religion awaiting the time of the intellectuals to lead the people out of sloth.
unless you have majority of population who are anarchists, you cant claim the society is anarchist. My point is it is extremely hard to get a plural majority of anarchists as most tends to be followers of order set by those in power or with influence. Saying a anarchist society will be ordered suggests a causative effect which wont be true.
Not necessarily. If the state were replaced tomorrow in a given geographical area with multiple options for various functions typically performed by governments (police, arbitration, schooling, etc...) and people had to pick which they used, the so-called followers could simply pick wantonly or follow someone else's opinion - much like people do for car insurance in the US. There would be no State regardless of whether or not the populace thought themselves to be anarchists. There would likely also be collusion amongst a subset of service providers to retain their markets (for policing, schooling, etc...); despite the inefficiency in such collusion, it would also apply a basic order to geographical region.
A plurality of the populace having anarchist views is not necessarily sufficient for anarchy; the availability and use of non-state alternatives to state activities is the required element. That may occur due to the work of an agitating minority and due to a weakness of the state as it inevitably deals with the aftermath of having to reckon with currency and debt issues. Minarchism and later anarchism may be foisted onto the people whether they want it or not.
thanks, very interesting and good counter argument.
But the point is not to force an "anarchist society" on people that couldn't handle it (as if that could even be possible), but to help people let go of the limiting beliefs that hold them to the present system, which brings so much institutionalized suffering with it.
Once people's attitudes evolve, the system of government in which they live will evolve too.
Every one of us is born as an anarchist, to an anarchist world, but our belief system, brought on by fear and insecurity, inflicts upon us this dysfunctional model of governance.
The question is: "Can people SURVIVE without rulers?"
The answer is: "We can THRIVE!"
We already live in anarchy, but we are not adapting to it successfully in some areas, due to our psychological troubles.
Look at Hamurg protest that is anarchists!
Anarchy works when it comes to trillions of cells in our body. It works in our love life and procreation (billions of people manage to fall in love, have sex, get married and have children without help from the government). It works with learning, skill acquisition, friendships and social gatherings. It works in a million different spaces, but somehow a road can't be built without government...lol!
Okay, they can have their roads (and the economy...for a while at least). As an anarchist, it is my job to build bridges - bridges of understanding, that illuminate people's heuristics and biases, and show them that for all intents and purposes, they are already anarchists...they just have to come out of the closet and let go of all this silly government nonsense:)
I think most people don't understand what anarchy means and think it means chaos.
I think this applies to many different things...I figured out long ago that if I ask people what randomness and/or chaos are, I would get disjointed gibberish and not a real answer.
When discussing anarchy with others, I use terms like freedom or Providence (when speaking with Christians), to avoid negative baggage the term anarchy carries.
lol that is total bs and ignorance. anarchy works in cells? wtf?
Why is it bs? If you can explain, we can have a proper discussion:)
It's just a weak metaphor that everyone is reacting to. It's hard to believe that one of my liver cells is autonomous, exercises free will and voluntarily does its job. Every cell in the body is essentially born into a caste, given a set task, and operates as a drone doing that task until the day it dies, all under the blanket of a very specific set of hard coded rules. The functioning of the human body on a cellular level does not scream anarchy to me.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct. And from our limited perspective, they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
The difference between the two is that government does such an incredibly crappy job.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
You mean science?
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
No, I did not say that.
So do you.
Apples and oranges. I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
First of all, I didn't intend to attack you, apologies and respect. But what you present as an argument for your case is nonsense. The way cells work do not resemble anarchy in any shape or form. All cells are made first initial cell that gets divided and multiplied as to form various organs and the whole body. As all of this process is going on instructions in DNA are being executed. Without DNA code cells can't do anything. Under that one code each cell knows what to do and how to react at various situations.
Just describing what humans do as a representation of anarchy is wrong as well. You wan't to let of government, so you need to talk in those terms. Show me examples of societies or communities that work under anarchy? Show me why it is better? You can't. That's why I say your point of view is just noise and complaining, without offering any better alternative. Once you can offer a better alternative to governance maybe then people would start paying attention. Until then it is just noise.
The reason I said bs was because your initial argument was completely wrong. You can't just take something that is wrong and use it to make the idea of anarchy good or already existent.
Good luck.
I don't know for what type of anarchy you all talking about in here, but it happened already and it was not easy to maintain.
Anarchy is the state of nature. There is no state in nature. Ecology leads to spontaneous order in an ecosystem. There is no monopolistic regulator determining the interactions between trees, fungi, birds, small mammals, etc...
that is what you like to think.
Emergent order can be hierarchical
It is amazing how most people don't see the hypocrisy in their way of thinking.
Yes! But it's how humans are built. It takes deliberate thinking about thinking for people to recognize some of their own inconsistencies and most aren't willing to do that.
yeap, just from some of these responses, I can tell that people are not even reading the posts.
Yep...unfortunately
It is amazing how you upvote somebody because he agrees with you when gives you total bs with anarchy of trillions of cells in our body. That is complete ignorance. But ok, just sad.
I would upvote you if you would express an actual viewpoint, instead of attacking mine. I welcome disagreement and I like debate and discussion. If you would like to engage in some, I would love that.
but it is true. There are 7 billion people on earth each doing their own thing and yet we think that governments control their ways. He made a good parallelism. the whole of governments come from the false perception that there is some kind of order. I also explain that in the article.
you didn't read it.
Please stop with you did't read thing. Just because I disagree (respectfully) doesn't mean I didn't read. Just for that I had to read it again, just to make sure.
It seems to me you are blinded with your own point of view and not even considering opposite opinion. But when you see something that is supportive of your idea, you embrace it even though foundation was based flawed argument.
Just because you see corruption and misuse of powers doesn't mean they are living in anarchy. Depending of societies, there are many various ways of keeping government in check. Sure governments will never be perfect, but the will be improved as times goes on. Improvement and changes been done through the human history. That's why we have democracies. It is not perfect, but it is best form of government we have.
You see reading your article all I hear is complaining complaining and saying "top elite is enjoying anarchy, why don't we do the same". That is not true. If there is abuse of power that is corruption not anarchy. Even then, lets say you are right, and they are doing whatever they want, you would really want to impose that to everybody???
Do you just think letting go of government all of the sudden will take us to happy-land? Look around the world, give me one example of anarchic society that offers better life to people. Look in the history, give me one example of anarchic society that offered better life to people.
In a way it is dangerous idea. People carry tribalistic character, and stick with people of same idea. In a society you propose (with no government) who is going to protect the weak? who is going to protect the minority? You wouldn't care about that, because you too busy complaining, and don't bother giving viable alternative that would work better. If you can't offer anything better, why should we listen?
It is one thing to criticize the government and elite, seeking improvements and another to ask to get rid of it. Once you do that you should be able to provide an better alternative that works for all. Until you do that, it is just noise.
Just because 7 billion people have their own way of thinking we need governance. We need common ground that everybody has fair plain field to live. Thats why we form governments and social contracts. To make sure everybody is protected regardless of idea, differences and status. That is why we have social contract. It is a necessity, but always needs improvements. That is called progress.
You talk about hypocrisy, but really you are being hypocritical. You are embracing those idea that side with you and praise your post, while brushing off the opposite view and saying "oh you just haven't read it". Only up-voting the comments that side with your point of view, just shows how bad anarchy would be for most. People would tend to take care of their own (whatever it is in their mind) and weak would be abused.
Anyway, good talking. I disagree but respect :)
What a dumb comparison. Cells in our bodies aren't free agents.
Well, you don't have to be an anarchist to agree with that. There are many things the government should simply stay out of. Although, it seems to me that we need some sort of government to uphold justice when it comes to wrongdoing concerning sex. Not to mention deciding who gets custody of the child in case of a divorce. And concerning marriage, it would lose most of its function without government.
Well, I don't like public schools either.
Friendships and social gatherings are rather natural. Why would government ever need to be involved in that?
Well, I'm for privatized toll roads, as long as they're affordable (like the toll roads in the US, and unlike the 407 in Ontario). This means no monopolies on routes from point A to B. If there are no monopolies, then unbuilt and unrepaired roads directly affect these private company's profits. But who would make sure a monopoly doesn't arise?
Maaaaaaannnnn... You said it with this post. FUCK! I have thought of this before (believe it or not, Stefan Molyneux presented a form of this argument a while back), but the way you word it and bring it to life/illustrate this idea is so clear and fresh, and making me wonder why I don't think about this more. Upvoted and Resteemed.
When people say anarchy has never worked, I ask when has a government ever worked?
and then everyone goes silent.
nobody says "hey look...that war went dandy!"
systems always work for some people. not all. governmental system favors the very few.
True. I think government generally works for the people in government.
Well done post You deserve for getting Upvote from me. I appreciate on it and like it so much . Waiting for your latest post. Keep your good work and steeming on. Let's walk to my blog. I have a latest post. Your upvote is high motivation for me. Almost all Steemians do their best on this site. Keep steeming and earning.
thank you
U are welcome, please visit my account if you have time to do
This comment has received a 0.05 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
People at the top have always done as they pleased, you're right, that is straight anarchy. Anarchy at the top, creates order on the bottom.
more or less :)
This is where the politics of fear comes in. The never-ending orwellian wars, terrorism..."We need the govenrment to protect us, we need order, we'll give up on our fundamental human rights, but, please, just protect us from all the bad guys we see on TV".
they are creating fear really. great commodity.
love definition of anarchy in the ""Toupictionnaire" the political dictionary : Etymology: from the Greek an, privative prefix, and from arkhe, power, commandment.
Anarchy is a political system that aims at the emancipation of any governmental authority or guardianship. The State is considered unnecessary and no individual is under the dominion of another (lack of hierarchy between men). The anarchic social system is founded on the free understanding of the various components of society.
Very often used in a pejorative way, the term anarchy then designates the state of that which is without command, without laws. It is synonymous with disorder, confusion and disorder that have nothing to do with anarchy - political system - but are often linked to the existence of competing powers. Because of this double meaning of the word anarchy, a source of confusion, the use of the word libertarian, instead of an anarchist, has developed since the end of the nineteenth century. Another synonym: Acratie.
For anarchists, anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, but corresponds to a harmonious situation resulting from the abolition of the state and all forms of domination and exploitation of man. It is based on equality between individuals, free association, federation or self-management, sometimes even collectivism. Anarchy is therefore structured and organized, without there being any primacy of organization over the individual.
http://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/Anarchie.htm
I think chaos has gotten a bad rep. It is really "order" in a way.
Anarchy same as other ideology have unobtainable goals. If we follow only rules we like sooner or later we end up been forced or forcing others. So we end up with law of the jungle.
Then if we look government as strongest animal in jungle. We are then in anarchy where government is strongest entity and holds most influence over us all.
I like your posts they make me think.
well the government officials seem to be doing fine...
more or so like today. jungle 2.0
Anarchy leads to the strongest animal in the jungle. Power hates a void. I see no difference between a tribe rules by a chief that determines the rules and a government over people. At least with a government, people get to choose their leader without losing their head if they didn't choose wisely.
Anarchy has never worked.
Even Genghis Khan was the leader of his horde and I bet there were rules that none of them would break in fear of death.
Our Republic in the United States is actually a controlled anarchy experiment that, until the early 20th century, actually allowed for INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Since then, the globalists have been chipping away from our Republic, and trying to indoctrinate our people!
Until the early 20th century? What happened in that controlled anarchy experiment when some states seceded?
What's Anarchy about? It's about individual rights, but it's be perverted by the fascist antifa to reverse the REAL meaning...this is what's wrong with America starting with the hippies of the 60's, all the way to the fascist Antifa of today....just saying...if you don't like your individual rights, then you can only be a socialist-collectivist, which is the epitome of fascism!!!
The states suceded because the Federal Government imposed tariffs on Southern Ports to produce 70 million in taxes, and the entire federal government budget at the time was 80 million dollars....what if you had to pay 86% of your income to the federal government....and that's even if you have an income that's sustainable....
actually, the fall did start with the civil war when Lincoln decided that the South should pay almost 90% of the expenses of the country, while the industrialized NORTH went pretty much tax free.....isn't this what the Revolutionary War was fought over, Taxation without Representation????
Anarchy or Self-Government? Just a thought...
What is the definition of anarchy? There are a few, "absence of government, a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority... a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government", so different people have different ideas about what anarchy means. It also means the "denial of any authority or established order" and the "absence of order : disorder".
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
At best, anarchy is a utopian ideal. There is only one way to free oneself of government control and that is through self-control. So what we are really aspiring to is not anarchy but actually self-government, the highest type of representative government, which is kind of happening on steemit, I think. Individual power is based on some kind of merit.
Definition of self–government is "self-control, self-command". It is "government under the control and direction of the inhabitants of a political unit rather than by an outside authority; broadly : control of one's own affairs"
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-government
yeap..the officials do whatever they want.
I demonstrate in the post that it exists (at least for those who govern)
That is thekey. That society and its members must be master of their own lives. That each member accounts for themselves and use that freedom to choose what is in their best interest as they go thru life. Only then are we truly a free society.
yeap
I feel capitalism is the best for a nation. Yea you mention corporations and the government have so much power. Well, every single citizen in a capitalist society has the POTENTIAL to become a powerful/wealthy person. So to anarchy, I cannot see humans thriving in that kind of society. Tell me one successful (civilized) area where anarchy is present! Capitalism will always be the best to me because of the potential available to every single citizen.
When I mention anarchy, I refer more to anarcho-capitalism, not anarcho-communism.
How do you measure success? by the number of bodies one murders in order for their nation to reign supreme? Western capitalism, or better..corporatism, has been raping the entire planet for over 3 centuries in order to be "successful".
It does not matter if it works or not, this planet can never adopt it because people can't do it, they are too dumb to understand that they must be responsible themselves, if they could do it would be already be here.
Pure anarchy could only happen in the future on one of our colonies.
@@ -64,16 +64,17 @@
to elec
+t
dumb of
Great post..
thank you
Who should maintain public services like roads with anarchy? I think a light and transparent government is needed.
Why do you think the government has special people who know how to build roads but the private sector does not?
Some infrastructures need to be coordinated. If every community choose a different "train line width", the train connection became useless.
I think in cryptocurrency world we have great examples of coordination/consensus without a "classic government"/"single poin of failure".
why do you assume that there is no coordination in the free market?
Most likely it's all about the fear that everybody will use different standards and government is the best way of having a single standard cover the whole country.
Still somehow pretty much everybody in the world is doing well with such a small thing as USB standard without government telling us to use it.
we are light years behind from that.
We still haven't a worldwide electricity plug and measurement system, communities and people are stupid. Reaching a consensus without government is the hardest part
Even though government is controlling things like that, they still haven't got a worldwide electricity plug :)
Because communities and government do not want to lose their power. It's easier to build an adaptor than reach the consensus, sit everybody at a table and say: "this is the worldwide standard, if you don't invent something really innovative please stick with it". Maybe DPOS is the most efficient form of governance :D
yet we have government all around the globe and they can't manage to do it. So this is an argument in favor on anarchy since it shows the incompetence of governments.
if people are stupid how they can be trusted to elected even stupider people to control them?
no need for consensus. it arises naturally with or without a government.
communities and people are stupid. Reaching a consensus without government is the hardest part
In anarchy it's even worse to reach the consensus.
I'd like to delegate my vote in certain areas to people smarter than me. the problem with democracy, dictatorship and anarchy is that somebody have to make decisions for others and most of the time he/she is incompentent
Even though I understand your concern, you can see how private markets and private consumers can handle what they are buying.
If I'm upgrading my PC, I won't buy an AMD processor for Intel motherboard.
If I'm building a railroad and buy trains, I'm pretty sure I could work it out that it benefits me (and others) the best way.
The magic word here is; IF ;)
We still haven't a worldwide electricity plug and measurement system, communities and people are stupid. Reach a consensus without government is the hardest part
Who is we?
Is worldwide electricity plug and measurement system needed? And according to who?
If communities (which are a group of stupid people) and people are stupid.
What are those in government?
Under "government" you never ever reach consensus. Goverment is, that one group forces the other group to do what they want with violence or the threat of violence.
Why business can not maintain public services? Actually they do it now. Presently you pay taxes to the government, then government just distributes it between sub-suppliers of services. If you would have paid directly it would had been less expencive. The question is army and police. Presently only government have the monopoly for violence, and I don"t know how to delegate it in private sector
Then it would need to be a form of government wich is more just pure management.
maybe locally. Things to think about.
Yes, coordinators. Because tunnels maintainance and some infrastructures are needed in the modern society.
I agree.
Anarchy is just another model of governance without the government. Would chaos necessary entails, I don't think so...only if we have mature, thinking people who are willing to take tough decisions to make things happen.
The cryptocurrencies seem to be the best way to "enact" such a world of anarchy through a trustless payment system. Imagine a world with no "free-riders." Or a world where everyone is a "free-rider."
It can turn really bad, or really good. Time will tell. :D
I explain in the article how government officials are more or less anarchists themselves since they rarely follow the law.
You do, but that is also a mass generalization assuming all are bad. I can see how bad apples have spoiled it, don't get me wrong. However, I don't think that it is all shit and that it does no good either. I am really curious to see how the anarchists would divide up the rations of food and other resources or would it just be all holds barred? I don't know.... I was in LA for the Rodney King riots. It is not a place I would like to go back to. Can you please explain how this would be avoided? What about the Katrinas? I am asking how you think those would or should be handled without the government and do you really feel those kinds of instances would be better without? Seems to me had there been helpful guidance there rather than corrupt it would have been different... so it is possible but I haven't got an idea as to how.
Any apple that joins a system corrupt by design must participate in becoming spoiled, to a greater or lesser degree.
same way the government officials divide the food. the 1% gets the most and 99% get shit. :)
vandalisms are not anarchic...sigh..those people were just pissed citizens. not anarchists.
well, it did happen under government control :)
private sector. why do you think that the private sector is more evil?
Technology + anarchy is a very powerful combination. With the Internet, Cryptocurrencies, Steemit and other tools we can use anarchy very effective!
yeap..these technologies do offer alternatives
Great post! Couldn't have said it better. Resteeming, following. Thanks!
Virtually every word of what we hear, see, and read at our level of the food chain is specifically created for our consumption to control what we think and how we vote.
The best news is that the blockchain could literally save the world from itself.
Decentralize everything!
yeap!
Interesting post. I'm not that familiar with the concept of anarchy but was having a discussion the other day on here I think it was and someone compared it to libertarians which I can definately relate to. The analogy they made was anarchy is to being libertarian what being a liberal is to being a democrate just more much more to that side I guess.
I think human nature means people will always be out for themselves regardless of what political structure is at play. Even if you look at people or movements with supposedly the best intentions somehow things always wind up being all about said group.
While I do think some structure is necessary for a society at least a larger society I also think politicians are inherently crooked, anybody who has a desire to get into politics I think has to be somewhat egotistical and self serving or they wouldn't want in.
I think the best we can hope for is for government to stay out of our lives as much as possible while still offering a bare minimum of structure for health and safety ie I don't mind that we stop factories from dumping toxins into lakes and rivers but don't necessarily want the government tellingg me how to live my life
a structure always exists with or without a government.
Thanks!!! Good information.
thank you
I love your last photo :D
:)
I respectfully disagree.
why?
Respectfully, I only hear noise and whyning from anarchists, nothing better and solid to offer. Occupy wallstreet dominated by anarchists failed miserably.
you are not making an argument. I just explained above that those who govern are anarchists themselves.
those were not anarchists. they still wanted the government to regulate...
did you even read my post?
I have read your entire post. Like ai said just saying those who govern anarchist is creating noise and whyning, it is absolutely false. Occupy wallstreet totally was overtaken by anarchists. I know it, because my friends were involved. Truly, without genuine problem solving goal and charismatic leaders it is just bs. I am sorry, but thats my opinion. I disagree but respect.
You are not explaining why. Aren't the politicians and lobbyists above the law as they have demonstrated over and over again?
claiming you are something is different from being one.
not an argument
I don't understand where you disagree
Anarchy Would Never Work. Anarchism is the boldest of revolutionary social movements to emerge from the struggle against capitalism — it aims for a world free from all forms of domination and exploitation. ... On the contrary, anarchist practice already has a long record, and has often worked quite well.
i think the way you are presenting your point is vgood and remarkable keep going on and make posts on these great topics
You didn't read the post
not really. you are referring to communism
yes. the government itself.
thank you
Good article, but I think that we can't dissolve the full state structure, we need small governments locally for maintain the basic services (water supply, maintain the public spaces and all that stuff) but definitely, the power structure that we have in the present is oppresive as fuck
I am not saying to dissolve it. I am just saying that anarchy exists within the government. they do whatever they want. that's my argument in the post. Basic services can still be maintained by the private sector. they are as greedy as the government officials.
Before I begin, because it seems that there is already some defense being taken from the sidelines... I am all for limited governing, I am for people being able to make their own choices and have their version of freedom. I am even for some anarcaristic townships... but a large community of people, I do believe for the sake of infrastructure and order, does need someone leading... rather, guiding. Now, you say that those who are in charge are practicing their own form of anarchy and I think your are correct. however, I don't see much so far from the anarchist movement that would give me confidence that there would be any amount of cohesion if the government were to disappear tomorrow. Without services such as 911 (pretty handy in an urban and suburban environment, but requires bodies and order to run properly), who would you have people call for help? Would they just miraculously wake up one day and have a fellowship for their neighbor? And as for the lack of public school, well, I homeschooled for 10 years and helped to start one of the largest homeschooling (and actually the largest unschooling groups) in Idaho. I have seen where kids fall behind because parents are lazy and I have seen kids thrive in spite of that. Unschooling, by its nature is pretty anarchy friendly, in terms of how we teach and how we guide our kids. Notice, there is still someone to teach and to guide. With anarchy, there is no guarantee who will lead, no order to determine fairness of leading and no checks or balances. Now, I am not saying that our government is good, or even passing. I think a revolution of epic kinds definititely needs to be had. I do have concerns about going towards the future in a way that leads us right back to where we are at best and at worst, gets those of us on the lower tiers of the capatlist money grinding machine in an even worse position than we are now. The longest lasting large, or mass, society that I have known (please correct me if I am wrong) to exist and succeed in anarchy only lasted a few years. People have yet to prove that they are strong enough, willing or even able to be in a chaos environment. We are so far out of our element, naturally and evolutionary speaking, that I think that it would be quashed without more planning and more leadership... which inevitably would lead to a non-anarchy state. How do you suppose to work around these issues without any guidance? Is there some sort of a middle ground or a starting point that you could suggest or are you sold on the anarchy only philosophy?
anything that disappears immediately and gets replaces by something does not work. you need a transition period.
private sector. it boggles me how people think that humans of the private sector are worse than those of the public sector. really a mind fuck. perhaps the greatest myth ever created.
actually since the government officials are anarchic it seems that they last more than 6000 years.
but we are in a chaos environment already.
same mechanisms..just from the private sector.
I am not sold out. I just think the world runs on autopilot and that the world believes that the doll sitting on the front seat governs the plane.
I didn't say you were sold out, I asked what method you were sold on. As for the rest of us not having faith in the private sector... I do have faith in the private sector. I am here aren't I ;) That being said, I haven't ever heard of a plan other than the one already in place or to do nothing. As for the government being anarchic, they aren't anarchic usually the entire time. The rules are in place and the government is hardly purely anything. It is an amalgomation of people and the more people involved, the more control needed, but also the more possibility for corruption. Do you have an idea of how to start the transition or how do you feel that it would look? You say we are in a chaos environment already and that isn't entirely true. Millions of people live right now through the order of the chaos. I was just hoping for an answer that involved some plans or an idea of how this would work. I would love to be on board with anarchy... but I am not on the side of simply throwing the sheep to the shark because they don't know better and a lot of the time, that is exactly what anarchy systems do. We want change, we need to make it happen. Ideas? Anyone?
they do get to do whatever they want though and get away with most things.
As humans, we all do. Just because they do what they want though, doesn't mean it is anarchy. If anything, we are a Plutocratic Oligarchy. Anyone can pretty much do anything, it's a matter of what the consequence are. Politicians don't "do what they want" as they are having their strings pulled. I think if you could find a way to make the top tumble, insert checks and balances and then keep things small then you might have a chance. As it is, this many people... I am yet to be convinced that there is a way that chaos would reign supreme and the only argument you're presenting is, "But they do it!" I am not trying to argue, but I would like to get past that dialogue with someone and get a real conversation started. There has to be something bigger than bitching the world. So, I ask again... So far, the only large scale anarchy plans have failed. I want to look at why and see what can be done better. Do you have any ideas how to make it happen? And that leads me to a second question, if anarchy has never reiged successfully, wouldn't that make it more of a transitional phase? Why would we want the transitionary phase as the end result?
We can agree that those on top, politicians or not, do not play by the same rules.
Again, I am not making a case FOR anarchy. I am making an observation where it persists. Before we can have a real conversation some people need to at least be open to the possibility of the idea. Again, slavery had the same problem. All societies had slaves before a certain point in time. Not an argument.
irrelevant. it might be a new paradigm. e.g blockchains slowly being introduced as a form of self governance.
I think it is a matter of perspective. I can agree to disagree, for the time being. It's not that I think that you're wrong, it's just I have seen a dangerous trend of younger people risking their lives, the safety of their family (my own family) and being unconventional to a point that they have gotten themselves in trouble that they might not be able to get out of. Anarchy isn't likely any time in either of our lives (I know, my personal opinion) but I would like to see a change and a shift towards a more positive, stable and fair direction. I was just hoping for a bit more and worst case, maybe it makes both of us think. Thank you for the conversation, I'll keep an eye on your posts and follow. Maybe you can find a solution that I have not been able to yet :) There is always hope! Love and light! Thank you for the stimulating conversation.
I was trying to find the post where you said something about transitions and found it here, so I apologize for posting in multiple threads here. Typically, the transition IS anarchy.
considering that political systems fluctuate there is always a certain degree of anarchy.
i have supported anarchy since the punk rock days -- these days on thinking about it , i see the benefit of benevolent dictatorships - like a good king type of thing
isn't the dictator the ultimate anarchist? ;)
That is true -- i am glad you see the point too
This is so spot on @kryiacos, I had this exact conversation over the weekend that turned into more of an argument where all I could do was give up. Why have so much trust in the government to lead? Mostly what they've done in the last 50 years is lead us into a state of debt and depression all the while they send troops to other countries to try and change how those countries function, this blind faith is just stupid, they dont think for themselves they trust that the people leading us have degrees and experience in leading, thats a load of hogwash! these "degrees" are a social construct, a "status" only available to those that fit the narrative, these degrees in politics are engineered to maintain the status quo!
Things are gonna change, and its starting to happen already, we are living in interesting times and I welcome Anarchy, Anarchy will bring forward our true leaders, people that can find organisation through chaos. Love this piece of yours man. thanks for the write up.
i think everything holds together because people believe in governments. they don't actually work or do anything to hold things together. everything runs on its own.
Yes, last photo for the collection " Nobody is perfect, that is why I am nobody")
same
Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope.
yeap
I thought I was free!!! Well that's what I'm told every five minutes of the day. So why do you need anarchy? I'm free to pay taxes, leave the country whenever I want, do what I want, when I want, to whom I want and Freely own what I want without any interference. So what's the problem?
I am not saying that there is a problem. I am saying that the government officials are proof that anarchy works.
I was being sarcastic my friend, I too believe in anarchy, I think taking someones property is theft no matter who does it. Cheers
oh :)
I agree VOTE FOR NOBODY!!!! This past election a construction worker ran for office and became a PA Senator. While running for office he promised to listen to the voters and be a voice for the people. I went to his office to share my concerns about SB217 https://steemit.com/freedom/@marymg2014/pa-sb-217-one-vote-closer-to-a-loss-of-liberty-a-time-for-pennsylvanians-to-act of course he could not talk to me he was "busy" so I asked that he email me or call me because this was very important. NEEDLESS TO SAY, I RECEIVED NO EMAIL OR PHONE CALL. The end result they are ALL a bunch of lying rat bastards and I will never vote again! Upvoted, followed and resteemed!
they never deliver on promises.
thank you.
Yes, lesson learned!
Thank you for an interesting article. As much as I appreciate the intellectual ideal of an anarchist society (and believe me, I do), I just don't see in most people the required level of maturity and consciousness for such a reality to be able to function in a peaceful and prosperous way. After all, governments and corporations are theoretically independent institutions. Why is there such a promiscuity between them? Because many people occupying governmental and legislative roles let themselves be bought by corporate money to protect their interests. And why do easily corruptible people keep playing key roles in governance in representative democratic regimes? Well, probably because there is a lack of political initiative from more ethically concerned people; because most people end up giving in to the right kind and amount of incentive for corruption; and because the universe of voters is composed of an uninformed and disinterested mass of people. Ultimately, I think the biggest issue is not the regime or the institutions, but the understanding that people have of them and the relationship they choose to establish with them.
but they have the skill to elect competent people? Doesn't add up man
Basically by the time you ended your comment you disagreed with your first premise.
You are partially right, but my argument was not specifically in favor of current governance systems. Actuality, what I was trying to point out was that the same widespread personal attitudes and states of mind that undermine the performance of a representative democracy would also undermine a strictly anarchist social organization. I would probably only point out to the differences in the kinds of expectations regarding freedom, security and access that you could develop within the two forms of organization. I can image very dire scenarios in an anarchist society with a majority of unconscientious people.
I would not focus on further disrupting the system of government, but rather on raising awareness and participation among the general public in all political and social affairs. Your article has this dimension, and that is why I like it and find it useful and insightful.
agreed
we can do the same for democratic systems...
Yeap, the point I wanted to make was that anarchy works because the rules act on it. nothing will really change if more people acted on it.
I see anarchism as No masters above, No slaves below. It certainly doesn't mean chaos. The current Statism is as toxic as it gets. Good stuff.
chaos is not necessarily a bad thing. i think chaos always exists with or without masters.
Like music to my ears! This was very well written.
thank you
Thank you so much for this post. I couldn't agree more with you.
Following you now. Sincerely I think you are a genius, all posts in your blog are just great!
Great stuff!
In a way of speaking, we're still ruled by Hobbesian thinking. The Social Contracts are still alive in our society and we're walking to a weird police state, owned by corporatists. (just a thought from a South American guy).
indeed
Just because they are at the top and making decisions we are forced to listen and agree. The only way to disagree with a politician is to vote him or her out. The influence over those at the top comes from big pharmaceutical companies and lobbyist. Every day I see an ad on TV for a new drug, but if you tell people that many diseases can be cured through your diet, you are looked at as a weirdo.
so you do agree that those on top function within the parameters of anarchy. they do whatever they want.
I think they are much more easily influenced by the big dollar pharmaceutical companies and lobbyist to pass certain legislation that they agree on. The all mighty dollar that can help fund a campaign is a powerful influence.
I liked this
thank you
Excellent! I actually never thought of the concept that the so called "law makers" are living in anarchy. It does work quite well. The problem of people being indoctrinated to believe anarchy would be violent chaos is a big part of the problem. It makes sense though. The ruling class knows how well it works for them so they feed us propaganda, video games like Homefront, and movies like the purge to shove the lie down our throats.
and guess who indoctrinates them to believe that :)
Survey says...lizard people!
Jk, I don't think they're lizards, although it would make me feel better about the inherent greed and corruption of the human race.
Those photos of New Jersey governor Chris Christie and his family with the "state" beach all to themselves because he closed it to the taxpayers says all that needs to be said about government.
You give a man an inch, he'll take a yard. We entered into a social compact, to enable some form of organization and government to keep men from killing each other, and dying from the elements, in the state of nature. But it wasn't a blank check, and the system has become too technocratic and bloated to maintain any system of checks and balances. That was supposed to be our three branches of government in the US as the federal level, and yet, we are seeing unprecedented examples of the aggrandizement of the executive branch in recent years. As I argue, time for Frontier Justice to have a comeback! https://steemit.com/politics/@oldmanjustice/frontier-justice
well, we still suck at that..you know wars, empires.. and all
Sadly, true story, my friend.
Hi, I'm flattering
Anyone who fools me makes a comeback
@haji
♥
The plebs tend to respond to most situations with emotion, never analyzing the situation technically. or if analyzed its probably too late.
indeed. (lol'd at plebs)
Anarchy seems to be another hijacked paradigm. TPTB have created groups that are shown to the public as riotous, lawless punks. IMHO, these people wouldn't fit into a true anarchist society. Those types of problems would most likely be dealt with in short order, discouraging unacceptable behaviors. are we really living in an anarchist society today? Just ask your representative if they are exempt from the laws they are passing.
I don't need to ask them. We both know that they operate above the law
Good article.
Freedom is threatening when you've been living in a cage. But it's also promising.
Cultural narratives create fear and paranoia so we only see the danger in the unknown, and not the opportunity.
Let's hope that, emboldened by the concept of freedom and self-determination, more people venture into the unknown and bring back new treasures, thus demonstrating the limitless opportunity that awaits.
well said
Congratulations @kyriacos!
Your post was mentioned in my hit parade in the following category:
Well i do agree that there is anarchy at the top ranks of every hierarchy or food chain. I do however think governments are ruled by "order", with order they are able to tax people, count them, demand responsibilities from them and basically control them. And in return they give them protection which is another form of order in the form of "security". Security is the biggest selling point for any government. They have sort of tried to monopolize security and have control over it which has allowed them to accumulate power. Anarchy on the otherhand which I interprete as "chaos" is inherent in the world. There will always be "order" and "chaos" or "anarchy", because human beings are capable of both. There is no problem with chaos or conflict but rather how it is expressed is the most important. Politics is expression of both order and conflict or anarchy as you say. We have to learn to deal with both when they are expressed. Unfortunately only order has been accepted as a norm by government while anarchy is seen as being uncivilised while in true sense if you are human you exhibit both feelings of being orderly and unruly.
most definitely. The "others" have to follow
precisely
yeap. not many people are ready to accept this.