You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 05:45:54 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Anarchy....Thoughts?  (Read 5304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BraiochTopic starter

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2009, 10:53:26 PM »
They were taught by people from a blind and superstitious standing from England. All of it originated from a country where Religion WAS the power, and had all of the say. Those born in the colonies were taught from those before them who had been taught those same things, it was a vicious cycle brought on by a religious government seeking to control the populace.

Offline Nicholas

  • Mr. Nice Guy (or so I am told) :-) Jag's Mulder *muse crack* Deviously delicious - according to a certain, most awesome Liege ;) King of Terrible. Always innocent despite what Caedy says. Spoiler buttons are evil. 42,19km!
  • Knight
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Location: My Skype info is available upon request!
  • Gender: Male
  • #JeSuisUnAnge #ReallyIAm #BlameMads
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2009, 03:00:59 AM »
Personally, I do like what Albert Einstein said about Anarchy once:

"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fueled by perpetually rejuvenated illusions."

Offline BraiochTopic starter

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2009, 03:05:24 AM »
Ahh Nic has joined ;)

Good to see you Nic

In any case I think the illusion is part of having a government as it is. That's kind of their thing as they like to hide all of the problems, scandals and illegal action while pretending all is well.

If that's not illusion, I don't know what is.

Online Vekseid

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2009, 09:24:37 AM »
As I stated earlier, we live in a society that from birth teaches us that we are meant to be like that. From the minute we have to start learning about to coexist with others, we are told to be nice, but yet at the same time we are shown to be ruthless, cut throat and extremely selfish. People only act as they do because the capitalist system we live in creates an environment that pits neighbor versus neighbor, dictates who has more value, and what is worth more.

Most people are pretty altruistic. Society wouldn't work, otherwise.

Quote
We live in a world where we are taught to struggle for every last penny just to blow it all on things that the cream of the crop have. We are shown that by any means possible, including screwing other people over, we should achieve to be the best.

It is in what our society teaches that people learn such behavior, we are not born like that.

This environment only really exists when we are supporting nonproductive classes - the financial elite of our society are no longer the productive elite. It's a temporary phenomenon, and only exists because we haven't adapted to the gross excess that modern society provides.

And you still haven't described what 'led by the people' means.

Offline Remiel

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2009, 11:45:49 AM »
This discussion reminds me of something Winston Churchill once said:

Quote
Democracy is the worst form of government known to mankind, except for all of the other ones that have been tried.

This discussion is probably more likely a discussion about philosophy than it is about civics.   With all due respect, Veks, I believe we are born selfish bastards (and if you doubt this, just watch a group of pre-school-age children interact) who learn, as we grow older, that we personally stand to benefit more if we respect the rule of Law than if we don't.   And therein lies the challenge to all civilised societies: how do we fashion our government so that the potential benefit from abusing one's position of power is less than the potential loss of property or freedom if one is caught doing so?  In the past, the only possible risk to a leader's life or treasure was of being weaker than one's rivals, and that was called Tyranny.    This transformed, over time, into the notion of Monarchy, or Divine Right--after all, a king must have a God-given mandate, or he wouldn't be king, right?  The presumption was that if the king wasn't acting in the best interests of his country, God would see fit to remove him from the throne.

As Churchill said, a representative democracy certainly isn't without its flaws--but I believe it's the best system we've currently got.  In what other system of government can you get a peaceful and orderly transition of power every x years? 

As for anarchy, I don't believe it will ever produce any kind of utopia.  Any situation without an established rule of law, without common consent, without a system of checks and balances, will inevitably deteriorate into tyranny.  After all, we've seen it before.  The French Revolution gave us Robespierre and Napoleon; the Russian Revolution gave us Stalin.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #30 on: December 10, 2009, 01:26:16 PM »
 *nods* There's also the problem that a modern civilization requires a organized system of governments. To allow companies and corporations to trade freely so raw materials, good and services are avalible. Without some large scale for of governance, the modern world would break down and we'd be castg back to about the 1800-1900's level of technology.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #31 on: December 10, 2009, 02:16:43 PM »
Like most systems of government, anarchy only works well on the small scale with a group of people that want to make it work.

Offline Jude

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #32 on: December 10, 2009, 02:25:49 PM »
You need to have a government to enforce the social contract; the honor system obviously does not work.

As for the imperfections of modern society, I don't know if it's so much of a problem of the type of government we employ as it is the underlying society upon which the government is built.  Republics don't have a whole lot pitfalls other than the fact that they rely on the citizens to make the decisions.  And when such a large percentage of voters seem incapable of critical thought and are remarkably ignorant on many important subjects , the Democracy doesn't function well.

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #33 on: December 10, 2009, 06:15:45 PM »
The people control the army. Well the closest there was Rome, and eventually one guy said screw you all I'm going across the Rubicon! A world where the people rule is all fine and well on paper, but people are too different. If you divided all wealth in the world up (assuming you could do it) evenly. Every pretty rock, every bullet, every greenback, every chicken, and give it out. It would be back where it is today in less than twenty years.

Why? Some people are spenders, some are savers, some are hoarders, some cheat, some lie, some steal. The same thing with government. You'll have someone who wants to be top dog, someone who wants to take the top-dog position.

I also like that world you use, Anarcho-Communist. It's very oxymoronic. A communist can't believe in anarchy, and an anarchist can't believe in communism. So how does that work? I'm not being glib I'm actually very curious.

Smart money is that if I could make the world into an anarchy in a decade you would have a democracy, a dictatorship, a commune, a republic, and another Holy Roman Empire. (Gosh I'm a sucker for that one, title alone.)
Simply because your average person craves some form of familiarity and you can't have that otherwise.

Offline consortium11

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2009, 09:46:54 AM »
I also like that world you use, Anarcho-Communist. It's very oxymoronic. A communist can't believe in anarchy, and an anarchist can't believe in communism. So how does that work? I'm not being glib I'm actually very curious.

Peter Kropotkin would be surprised to hear that his works are oxymoronic... as would the anarchists who ran Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War... probably still the most effective example of anarcho-communism in the real world.

The end point of Communism is a society without the state and the common ownership of the means of production… anarcho-communism advocates the exact same position. The only real difference is their means of getting there: communism looks to a dictatorship of the proletariat to give the revolution the momentum and structure it needs to continue where as anarcho-communism, hating the state as it does, believes such a step is a betrayal of the ideas and moreover that if you give even the most ardent revolutionary absolute power he would become a tyrant within years.

Anarcho-communism is one of the main branches of anarchist theory and has a pretty large amount of literary strength behind it. If anything it’s one of the most theologically sound of the anarchist subdivisions… certainly more than the recently popular anarcho-capitalist doctrine.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2009, 11:45:30 AM »
 Unfortunately it doesn't work well with large groups. Past a certain point, organization is required. Unless you can  make everything you need at a local or state level.

Offline consortium11

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2009, 02:13:15 PM »
Anarchy means a lack of leaders, not chaos and THAT is what I believe in. Having a place where I don't have a group of people leeching money from myself and my loved ones, where people actually have a say in what happens.

While I think you step back from this position later it's worth pointing out that Anarchy in no way means the lack of leaders. It means the lack of the state... which are two very different propositions. The Anarchist movement has long been characterised by a series of empassioned and charismatic leaders; Buenaventura Durruti, Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman and countless others.

I have a soft spot for Anarchism... and a similar soft spot for communism (which may come as a surprise to those who have been following my posts in this forum). That said the soft spot is entirely ased on their utopian qualities... I don't believe either works in a practical context. Anarcho-communism has always relied on the idea that after the fall of the state society would spontaneously perform all necessary labour as they recognized the benefits of communal enterprise and mutual aid. I don't think they would. I think it's a far too optimistic view of human nature; in contrast where the state has collapsed (and there haven't been large scale movements immediately stepping into the void) the movement has been far more towards Anarcho-Capitalism than the collectivist disciplines of Anarchy. I'm also pretty critical of most Anarcho-Communists attempts to preserve some level of private property... it seems they're trapped etween a rock and a hard place and aren't sure how to logically get out of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think the state is a necessary evil... an evil yes... but a necessary one...

Offline Revolverman

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2009, 02:24:16 PM »
Unfortunately it doesn't work well with large groups. Past a certain point, organization is required. Unless you can  make everything you need at a local or state level.

I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

Offline consortium11

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2009, 02:50:36 PM »
I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

There's a whole school of political philosophy ased around that principle: the catchingly titled "Minarchism"

Offline Revolverman

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2009, 05:38:37 PM »
There's a whole school of political philosophy ased around that principle: the catchingly titled "Minarchism"

Seems logical to me.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2009, 09:59:39 PM »
I have little love for anarchy as it seems all too ready to have the rules cast aside without thought for what would happen.  There is far too much idealism in the notion without consideration for the pain it would cause people.  While government is abused and continues to abuse, anarchy promises nothing but more brutal and short lived abuse.  I have entertained arguments from anarchists and have yet to truly see a practical application of the theories.  There has been, to my knowledge anyway, no lasting movement by anarchism and no current society that lives by those tenets (at least one that does not exist in the context of a larger government).

Offline Revolverman

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2009, 10:22:05 PM »
There has been, to my knowledge anyway, no lasting movement by anarchism and no current society that lives by those tenets (at least one that does not exist in the context of a larger government).

the closest example I can think of is Somalia, and we all know what it's like there.

Offline BraiochTopic starter

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2009, 10:24:42 PM »
I think the answer to a mass scale of the ideal as well as the answer to Veks, "led by the people" question is direct democracy. Meaning and yes, direct democracy you'd have administration, made up of ordinary people (who would be educated in their role as administrators.) Administration is not the same as government for the record.
 As in, everyone who is affected directly by an issue will vote on it, and then, if their decision is part of a larger body, they elect a delegate and send them to a congress with the group's decision, and then the delegates all vote and the delegates would be able to be instantly recalled if they didn't carry out their group's wishes. (they'd have little reason to disobey their mandate, however, since they would always come from the community that they were representing)

Led by people, for the people, not this crap that they do now >.>

Quote
I have little love for anarchy as it seems all too ready to have the rules cast aside without thought for what would happen.

It throws out old and poisonous rules for the sake of new ones that actually give the people actual say. It's not about throwing out the rule book and saying "screw it, rape, pillage and massacre to your heart's desire, do what you will everyone!" There is a system in place for it all, as I have been explaining.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2009, 12:37:17 AM »
Sounds like you're drawing up similiar to the Articles of Confederation, which didn't work either.  If there is a system in place, that means there are laws in place.  If there are laws in place then those laws require enforcement because law without enforcement is a waste of paper.  Same issues as what is being complained about.

Offline BraiochTopic starter

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2009, 02:55:04 AM »
The enforcement comes from people placed and trained into that situation that uphold laws decided by these committees. It's a fair system in which the people get a say, it doesn't require a the system we have now in order to make it work.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2009, 03:09:52 AM »
So if the rules come from a committee than they must be fair and just.  Because we all know that the majority always pass what is best for everyone.  Thereby the laws being enforced by people properly placed to do so will be enforced justly and fairly.  Hence all people will be happy.

Four sentences and already I’m seeing a lot of =/= signs here.

Offline consortium11

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2009, 09:29:12 AM »
I think the answer to a mass scale of the ideal as well as the answer to Veks, "led by the people" question is direct democracy. Meaning and yes, direct democracy you'd have administration, made up of ordinary people

Who pays for this administration?

 
(who would be educated in their role as administrators.) Administration is not the same as government for the record.

Who pays for their education? Who educates them? And if we have a seperate class of administrators who are educated and paid to implement the decisions of the whole, doesn't that almost implicitely mean they're no longer "of the people"? Don't they become a political elite?

As in, everyone who is affected directly by an issue will vote on it, and then, if their decision is part of a larger body, they elect a delegate and send them to a congress with the group's decision, and then the delegates all vote and the delegates would be able to be instantly recalled if they didn't carry out their group's wishes.

What constitutes directy affected?

What constitutes a larger body? A town? A county? A country? A continant? What's the scale?

What happens if the decision of my delegate is out-voted? Why can't I simply ignore the decision?

What happens if I disagree with the decision made by my community? What happens if I ignore it?

Are there any limits or checks and balances on what can be voted in or out of existence?

(they'd have little reason to disobey their mandate, however, since they would always come from the community that they were representing)

People within a community don't vehmently disagree?

Led by people, for the people, not this crap that they do now >.>

It throws out old and poisonous rules for the sake of new ones that actually give the people actual say. It's not about throwing out the rule book and saying "screw it, rape, pillage and massacre to your heart's desire, do what you will everyone!" There is a system in place for it all, as I have been explaining.

Who enforces the rules that are decided? Who pays for those who create and enforce the rules? Does private property exist? Who sets this system up? And for example, what really differentiates this system from the Swiss setup... which includes direct democracy?

The enforcement comes from people placed and trained into that situation that uphold laws decided by these committees. It's a fair system in which the people get a say, it doesn't require a the system we have now in order to make it work.

Who trains these enforcers? Who places them?

And I struggle to see how this consitutes Anarchy in any way, shape or form... or even communism. While you avoid using the word "state" what you have is comittee's who decide laws (which appear to e decided y a simple majority) and a group who uses coerceon to enforce those laws. What makes this system different to a more directly democratic version of the existing system?

I'd also actually question if this system is truly direct democracy... due to the way the delegate system you advocate is set up it could well e that the popular vote would lose... and even if it doesn't if means that supporters who have 49% of the popular vote in a certain area have no representation at the top level...

Offline BraiochTopic starter

  • Devil. Mad Scientist. King of Debauchery. Brat Prince. Duke of Snark. Warlock of Orgies.
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • Imfinewhydoyouask? Canyoutastetime?Ican
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2009, 10:48:14 AM »
*holds head*

With so much of this I feel that it seems self-explanatory or at least included with what I was saying before and it feels like I'm going in circles with all of this.

That aside some very good points have been put forth, hopefully I've been able to answer them well enough. This is the part where I'm forced to bow out on the other hand because we've reached the limit of what I know, because as I stated earlier I'm still learning more as time goes on. I Consotorium presents a few good questions along with some frustrating circular questions, but it's the good questions above all that I fail at being able to answer.

So with that I admit my inability to neither counter that nor be able to give proper answers. Bear with me here, I'm a proud person, and admitting this sucks, I won't like, lol. So it seems I must retreat for now until I have enhanced my knowledge of this subject to be able to properly discuss it. It was a bit foolish and impulsive of me to be just rush into making this thread, that has become all too clear. Though my intent was too see where it was that I need to look more into this to be properly prepared as well as know my weak points.

You have made that perfectly clear >.<

Thank you again, because it definitely worked, I have plenty more to research to do before I attempt this again.

*slips quietly out of the room back to his lair*

Offline Zakharra

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2009, 07:39:53 PM »
 Your idea would only work if everyone in the committee was of the same mindset. If you get enough people who do not  see the world in the same way, disagreements and conflict will erupt sooner or later.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Anarchy....Thoughts?
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2009, 07:52:17 PM »
I personalty think that's best. Put as much power as possible closest to the people, and that would fix many problems.

Lobbing would sure go down the crapper, that's for sure.

 Unfortunately that's not possible to do and keep a modern society. You have to have organized governments. To set monetary value, to have trade agreements, set laws, to have a military, infastructure (roads, bridges, railroads,dams, electrical grid, communication and the like). Without any of that, long range trading would die. Companies need the raw materials to make their products and in todays world, trade is truely a global thing now.   Unless you want to return to a pre industrial style of living.