31 replies to this topic

[BooZker]

What is Anarchy you say? No it has nothing to do with Punk Rock or criminals. Anarchy is,"Absence of any form of political authority. " Here is a passage from Wikipedia

Quote

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on individual self-determination and personal involvement. In place of what are regarded as authoritarian political structures and coercive economic institutions, anarchists advocate social relations based upon voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance.

How would a society with a goverment work? Well a man Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (an Anarchist)said

Quote

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.) With that in mind read on.

People also ask what about police, fire, and rescue? Well in a true Anarchist form of society people would make them, themselves. They would be like a private business.

Another thing people always ask is how would money work. Money would work by how many hours your work. Yes its a honor system in a way, but one mans job in a job would be to see if they came to work then gave them a slip with how much they worked. So example 1 hr = $1. People that could not work would be helped by others. Unlike in America today wher ANYONE can get free goverment cheese, these people would actually have to be incapable of working. America today if you have back pains you get your life paid for. (Remember that there are many forms of Anarchism and this is just one.)

So do you think this would work in the world of today? Some very smart people were Anarchists such as Albert Einstein. I will not say my opinion, but for sure i think some of the ideas stated by Anarchists would be great while others just would not work in today's world.

Edited by BooZker, 29 April 2006 - 04:33 AM.

[True2Earn]

Where are the quotes? You cut & pasted a large portion of your post from http://en.wikipedia....Joseph_Proudhon (about two-thirds down the page). There are rules regarding posts and to intentional not use quotes is considered spam as you are merely trying to rack up credits. Your post should be:

Quote

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.)

as quotes are not counted toward your post.

Edited by True2Earn, 29 April 2006 - 03:45 AM.

[BooZker]

Actualy no im not trying to get points. I just use wikipedia because they have everything on everything. And sorry about not using the quotes i just totaly didn't think about it. I just was writing an article. Please don't ban me or delete this post. I was just trying to start a topic.

Plus i fixed it. Sorry. I didn't know about the point system and that quotes make a difference.

Edited by BooZker, 29 April 2006 - 04:34 AM.

[jlhaslip]

Thanks for fixing that. As you see, we here at the Trap are somewhat anarchistic (?). There was no "authority" which placed the burden upon you to repair your mis-quoted topic. The members here do just fine, often enough.
Thanks to their diligence, there was no need for Moderator intervention, kinda like a lack of Government wouldn't you say?

[BooZker]

Actually thats exactly what it would be like. I mean it would be like me doing that and then fixing it or me fixing it after going to jail or court.

[LocalSeer]

Anarchy can work well in small systems, but it fails conpletly on micromanagement(hence the waste on corruption), why should a men work 10 hours of hard manual labour when he can spend 10 hours of typing as a secretary and get paid equal. That's why communism failed, repairmen would be sent to a house needing replacement lights and instead they take some of the good ones and put bad ones in place. Just look at the U.S. Navy. A fleet out at sea can have a carreir, several destroyers, submarines, and cruisers all bunched up, and somehow they always have enough food, fuel, ammunition. The fine accountability of personal and cargo allows them to move smoothly. When a person goes overboard, almost immediatly within minutes the captain can know who is missing, or when something goes bad exactly, where, when and who. All the paperwork the military does is so extensive there is no way someone can check it all, it makes sping on personal possible but money inefficent and ineffective. Yet no other way could a carrier have dozens of planes in such a small space and each one knowing precisly what to do. There are benefits to willingly constraining yourself like increased productivity and we in the Navy have absolutly no restraint when it comes to partying(hence the clubs/poolhalls on base.

[BooZker]

Very true. Isn't a bit odd too that we have all these computers, radars and more but the USA could not find Osama... hmm... lol Off subject, but...

Yes, in small systems it would work, but after so many people it can't purely because of the need of someone to take command and tell them what to do.

[adriantc]

Quote

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.) With that in mind read on.

That are some nice words, but lack any substance. Because what he said are only ideas, he said "it would be great if ...". But you can't build something starting with "if". What he said can never be put into practice. A society like he said can never hold more then a few months, even weeks.

Well first of all I have to declare myself a strong supporter of any form of guverment and law. If I could change the laws, death penalty would be a lot more common. Law MUST exist and laws MUST be enforced (by any means). Further more I would kill off democracy since I think the people (taken as a whole) do not have the wisdom not the control necessary to guvern themself. They can be (and they have been) easily manipulated. So in order to escape that "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.", I would create a special class of people grown from infancy with virtues like selfsacrifice and wisdom, with knowledge and inteligence. They should rule the world, in the benefit of all people not of themself. Of course they will not be perfect, but they will be as near to that as possible. They must be as objective and fair as possible and rule with an iron fist

Well I was off topic so ... going back to anarchy... Anarchy means lack of guverment and laws. Any guverment is better then no guverment. Just think what would happen when somebody would say there is no law anymore, you can do whatever you want. Do not think people are sweet little angels. We have dark desires coming from our animal origins, but that desires are stoped by the existance of laws and punishment. An anarchyst would say "Rules are made to be broken". It is also true that when you say "don't do that..." people usually do it just for the fun of not obeying. But that are only exceptions. A society has made connections between individuals, break that connections and society as we know it will fall. People can't simply be taken as individuals. We are too many to be taken as individuals. Further more our reactions (as a mass) can easy be read and anticipated. People are a lot more predictable when taken as a whole.
What I understand anarchysts want is a society where people would do whatever then want, be whatever they what. Simply thinking about that and multiplying with 6,5 billion people will cause 6,5 billion problems. So anarchy is not good at all. Globalization is the exact same oposite of anarchy... people coming together and, besides some aspects which I will not state now, I think globalization is good since it will allow a much bigger improvment in our life style. Mixing people will, in generations, kill rasism and the problems it generates. This is a dream as old as civilization itself and its sure it can't be realized thru anarchy...

Edited by adriantc, 30 April 2006 - 04:59 PM.

[wariorpk]

I do not agree that anarchy would work, especially not today. Having basic services run by private companies is not a good idea. Corruption and crime would be very widespread. It is impossible for people to have a society without laws and stuff because people can do what they wish since their will be no laws to break. Anarchy benefits criminals and government usually benefits the innocent in my opinion.

[BooZker]

adriantc i do not agree with you at all your talking about Kings and Queens. If you havnt noticed that is not around anymore. The reasons?

Tons of corruption
Pour get pourer faster then capitalism
One sided answers to all problems
Not to mention that it has failed every single time. Name ONE country today that is functioning great today that has king and queens
You would not be able to choose your religion, career, or sometimes even wife/husband.

DUMB IDEA.

I think when you go to college, or if your in college take a world history class and politics. Think about how many revolutions there has been. Does that not even process in your mind? No matter how smart someone is there going to be faults in there thinking? Albert Einstein was one of the smartest, he was an Anarchist. So this would not work so you would have to pick someone not as smart.

By the way that is called Monarchy in which the leaders are chosen from divine right.

And to support the death penalty so strongly is not so thoughtful. For one your giving them the easy road out. Second, what if they are innocent? Do you know how many cases there have been that have ended up like that. I'm not religious at all, but i do think killing someone is going back, AGAIN, to the dark ages. I live in washington where it is still legal to hang people and also death by firing squad. I think put them in jail for life rather then letting them out the easy way.

Seriously though does anyone agree with going back to the King and Queen ages? They were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

Edited by BooZker, 01 May 2006 - 05:25 AM.