I read some of them, yes
I linked you to 2 specific threads
- however, we are using entirely different definitions for the practical application of anarchy.
I am still not aware of it.
Bronze age, as I understand it, was not anarchy.
I guess it is because took more than anarchy even to get to there.
I am not aware of any examples of large scale anarchy, since that would mean no violence and no overpowering of others and our historians claim no such examples as far as I am aware.
Because anarchy is unsustainable and leads to more violence and worse tyrannical regimes.
As already stated, Anarchy cannot sustain violence, since violence itself requires a 'ruler' and that is, by definition, the opposite of anarchy. That is part of how we are using different definitions for anarchy.
I think you are missing that the moment anyone overpowers anyone else, they are 'ruling' them - albeit perhaps without actual written rules.
Anarchy leads to violence, and to its own demise.
Anarchy is an unstable state.
Unstable states tend to collapse to stable states.
And under anarchy it is easier than under a uniform rule which monopolizes the use of violence.
Anarchy literally cannot possibly lead to violence - it is the polar opposite of violence. What you are saying here is logically equivalent to saying that peace leads to violence.
You are saying that without rulers we have violence, yet it is 'the states' of the world and their rulers that have been responsible for more death than just about anything else.
Setting aside that you are using a false understanding of anarchy.. What examples of anarchy are you referring to here? You are speaking as if you have lived through anarchy or can point to examples of it. Which examples are you referring to?
What will prevent people from settling their disputes the prison way under anarchy?
What will prevent gangs from becoming the new rule under anarchy?
I know, the moment these things happen, the anarchy ends, according to
you.
So for the first and last 25 minutes of its existence, anarchy will be peaceful.
Then it will end, and it will not contradict any of your claims, according to you, since, according to you, it will no longer be anarchy.
One example I linked you to in my first comment and then asked you if you bothered to read in my reply to your reply.
Maybe so. The issue is that of intention. If those involved do not intend real anarchy, then they will not have it and will need to decide whether they want to continue living in an imbalanced way or whether they are ready and willing to learn what they need to understand to let peace be the lived experience.
Does government and hierarchy stop violence? no! In fact, they actually create the prisons themselves - so do you not agree then that the opposite of anarchy absolutely guarantees prison gang mentality to some extent? With anarchy, however, there is a chance at something more attuned to human needs and liberation.
I understand your concerns, what if there is no control grid ready to 'protect' from the most imbalanced in society? Well, we would need to take steps to protect each other in a balanced way. The outcome is entirely dependent on our own level of enlightenment and balance. Since we learn through experience, the only way for us to reach greater balance is to have new experiences and to learn from them - allowing for evolution. Removing the grip of hierarchic domination is a necessary way for us to learn quickly and accelerate evolution.
I started reading your posts but quickly saw that the rest of the text was based on definitions that I don't agree with at a core level, so rather than spending a lot of time reading and responding, point by point, I simply highlighted the first core disagreement and misunderstanding.
The only example I can see in your first linked post is a reference to a Soviet defector who talked about inciting anarchy. However, I see no evidence that he understood the correct definitions for workable anarchy either and it is likely that he was referring to the form of non-anarchy that is often called anarchy that results in people running down high streets, smashing shops. Anarchy does not imply a lack of co-operation, it simply describes a state of non domination and no overpowering - these are in no way problematic in life and are, in truth, beneficial for growth, harmony and creativity.
What is your issue with definitions?
Anarchy is when there is no government.
However this condition is unsustainable.
People will always live by hierarchic structures and always did:
The family, tribe, race, religion, gang affiliations, personal cliques and alliances.
These structures tend to be hierarchic.
There are cases when there is no time to discuss, decisions should be made and acted upon, and hierarchy saves precious time
The example you referred to was not the one I meant, even if it is relevant too.
Definitions form the basis of thought. Without understanding the definitions being used, we can waste our lives discussing things and not understanding what is being said.
An-archy literally means 'no rulers' - it does not merely mean 'no government'. As soon as anyone attempts to 'rule' someone against their will - they have broken the state of an-archy by creating them-self to be a ruler. All this is needed is for me to, for example, direct you to stand in a certain location and attempt to force you.. At that point, I am attempting to rule you.
Your mind is biased here.
Hierarchy requires subordination - the receiving of commands against the will. This is neither balanced, nor sustainable. You are referencing a history through mental lenses that have no concept of actual lived anarchy and are judging that such a state is as you say it is - when it is not.
Just because many people involve themselves in hierarchy, is not evidence that it is impossible to be without hierarchy.
Decisions can be made quickly without hierarchy. A team can communicate on an equal footing, with a shared understanding that some people are in a better position to make certain determinations than others - without having a forced hierarchy. The issue is control and how to live without being controlled while being effective.
You can look at the cases where entire police forces have quit in South America and other areas, for example, to see that the crime levels actually DROP during those periods. Also, when driving experiments have been performed that involved the total removal of all enforced lines painted on the roads, the levels of accidents dropped significantly. By empowering people to THINK CONSCIOUSLY and take real responsibility - instead of deferring to hierarchies - we transform people from partially dead, unthinking, zombies - into real people!