The merits of an anarchistic society

[PaulS1950]

The Irish Celts had a tribal society - actually many tribes. They fought among themselves and outsiders, they even fought side-by-side in some cases against a common enemy. They had laws and punishments for breaking those laws.

Somalia is in an anarchistic state right now. (State of being) The strong and powerful are killing the weak quicker than any war would. If that is an example of how you wish to live then move there.

 

[High_Gravity]

How come anarchists are not flocking to Somalia?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Irish Celts had a tribal society - actually many tribes. They fought among themselves and outsiders, they even fought side-by-side in some cases against a common enemy. They had laws and punishments for breaking those laws.

Somalia is in an anarchistic state right now. (State of being) The strong and powerful are killing the weak quicker than any war would. If that is an example of how you wish to live then move there.

The proper terminology is clan. And again, anarchy does NOT signal lack of laws. There are even laws in somalia now. Religious laws, customary law and common law. The biggest one now being sharia law since the transitional government is one of religious build (noteworthy as even though this government does not have authority oveer all of somalia, it's working on it).

After that, no one said anything about wanting to move there. Jeebus you folks really bring out he fallacies when your favorite government systems are tested against anarchic systems.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How come anarchists are not flocking to Somalia?

probably because somalian militants hate westerners and sharia law is one of the dominating legal systems they have right now. Among other reasons.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

TASB, if you can show me an example of anarchy anywhere that provided freedom from fear and oppression for anybody, that provided opportunity for prosperity for most, that was not marked by brutal lawlessness and preying on the weak, or that wasn't overtaken by a ruthless dictatorship as soon as he could assert his superior strength, go for it. The examples you have thus far provided simply don't hold up in the light of the recorded history because the examples you have so far held up have not been anarachies and/or the places where anarchist systems are in effect have all been hellish, unstable places.

The ONLY areas in which anything good is happening in Somalia at this time is due to efforts to reinstitute a stable government and the influence that is having. Anarchy cannot be given the credit for that.

Appeal to emotion, strawman and false dichotomy all in one!

yahtzee!

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Anarchy by my definition, and by the definition of 99.9% of the rest of the world, means without government, without law, without rules. Even in the mythical utopian society where people live blissful life free of any authority or rules, anarchy still means without any enforceable law or rules.

A government/structure/pecking order or whatever within a family, a small clan, a small town, or whatever is nevertheless government. It is not anarchy.

TASB seems to want to redefine anarchy to mean without central government in a nation. That is not what anarchy is.

 

[High_Gravity]

How come anarchists are not flocking to Somalia?

probably because somalian militants hate westerners and sharia law is one of the dominating legal systems they have right now. Among other reasons.

I have a question about that though, is anarchy supposed to be peaceful?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Okay what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Anarchy by my definition, and by the definition of 99.9% of the rest of the world, means without government, without law, without rules. Even in the mythical utopian society where people live blissful life free of any authority or rules, anarchy still means without any enforceable law or rules.

A government/structure/pecking order or whatever within a family, a small clan, a small town, or whatever is nevertheless government. It is not anarchy.

TASB seems to want to redefine anarchy to mean without central government in a nation. That is not what anarchy is.

Anarchy is a greek word that literally translates as "no ruler". As oppsed to monarchy.

The problem here is that You're trying to equate any social system people create with government. If that were the case, then tribe and clan, would by synonymous with government. They are not, and for good reason.

Yes, statists pound away on anarchic systems as lawless (and why wouldn't they. it's their passion, their whole world to believe that a leader and a formal authority structure is the only means by which society can exist), chaos, destruction, disorder, etc..

But that's not really the case from the perspective of anarchists. Who, like any other philosophy, have branches of thought and differing opinions about what the removal of a formal government will mean.

On a technicality, it is even argued that Somalia is NOT anarchy (now, before you jerk your knee, thats not an argument Im making here), but literally a center of chaos. Due mainly to interventionsit policies of early 1900 western imperialism. There is a good debate in that. Though from the perspective of an observational anarchic system, somalia does, in fact, fit the description of no formal government.

And I've already pointed out that somalia has laws...religious, customary and common. So I guess if wwe're talking that anarchy has no laws, then Somalia doesn't qualify by your own standards. So the argument is completely moot here.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How come anarchists are not flocking to Somalia?

probably because somalian militants hate westerners and sharia law is one of the dominating legal systems they have right now. Among other reasons.

I have a question about that though, is anarchy supposed to be peaceful?

i dont know. Is formal government suppose to be peaceful? Because if so, they fuckin' flunked big time.

better yet, are people suppose to be peaceful?

I mean, load up another one, will ya?

 

[Asclepias]

Arguing about anarchy is like arguing about communism. Neither can exist in its purest form because of human nature. We as humans just don't think and act in a manner that would make either form work long term.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks for that profound assessment.

 

[Asclepias]

Thanks for that profound assessment.

Glad to help.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Anarchy by my definition, and by the definition of 99.9% of the rest of the world, means without government, without law, without rules. Even in the mythical utopian society where people live blissful life free of any authority or rules, anarchy still means without any enforceable law or rules.

A government/structure/pecking order or whatever within a family, a small clan, a small town, or whatever is nevertheless government. It is not anarchy.

TASB seems to want to redefine anarchy to mean without central government in a nation. That is not what anarchy is.

Anarchy is a greek word that literally translates as "no ruler". As oppsed to monarchy.

The problem here is that You're trying to equate any social system people create with government. If that were the case, then tribe and clan, would by synonymous with government. They are not, and for good reason.

Yes, statists pound away on anarchic systems as lawless (and why wouldn't they. it's their passion, their whole world to believe that a leader and a formal authority structure is the only means by which society can exist), chaos, destruction, disorder, etc..

But that's not really the case from the perspective of anarchists. Who, like any other philosophy, have branches of thought and differing opinions about what the removal of a formal government will mean.

On a technicality, it is even argued that Somalia is NOT anarchy (now, before you jerk your knee, thats not an argument Im making here), but literally a center of chaos. Due mainly to interventionsit policies of early 1900 western imperialism. There is a good debate in that. Though from the perspective of an observational anarchic system, somalia does, in fact, fit the description of no formal government.

And I've already pointed out that somalia has laws...religious, customary and common. So I guess if wwe're talking that anarchy has no laws, then Somalia doesn't qualify by your own standards. So the argument is completely moot here.

Anybody who would identify me as a statist would be laughed out of town by anybody who knows me at all. I am anything but. I want no government at any level above and beyond what is necessary to be free, to be able, to function cooperatively and voluntarily.

And we can split hairs all day long over what government is, but in my definition it is any system that is understood as having the ability to enforce the law and/or rules that people will live by. That can be at any level from the family to the local fraternity to the Country Club to the neighborhood association to the village to a clan, to the state to the federal government. To say that the rules and power given to the clan to enforce them is not government is to be really short sighted re what government is.

A group of kids can organize a sandlot baseball game and agree on what rules will apply. And so long as all follow those rules, you can have an effective anarchal system as you describe it. (There is some question whether anything with rules is a true anarchy however). Bur without a coach or somebody given authority to enforce the rules, if one refuses to obey the rules, the others may be able to drive him out and continue. But if several refuse to obey the rules, and the others cannot persuade them to cooperate, the game will inevitably dissolve into chaos, perhaps violence, and ability to play the game as it should be played is destroyed.

Given human nature as we know it to be, THAT is why anarchy, at whatever level, is almost always certain to fail. With no way to discipline or correct the rebel, the dissident, the bully, the self serving mercenary, or any other who does not respect the others or the will of the group, you inevitably have chaos, violence, and no chance for a peaceful society.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, then. Well. There is absolutely no reason to carry on here. You have a giant umbrella under which you use the term government. Since this is so, it makes me wonder why you even entered this conversation. Because by your definition there never, EVER has been anarchy and everything is government. Literally.

You could have just said that to begin with.

You are welcome to change definitions of words around, but it certainly makes for some very confusing and dizzying conversations/debates.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh are you leaving the thread. Again? One more time TASB?

I GAVE you an example of anarchy in my previous post, which you apparently didn't read.

But yes, government is by definition is whatever is given authority to enforce the rules by which we live by. In my perfect world, the people themselves make the rules and assign government the responsibility to enforce them. But I do know that government exists at many levels beginning with the family whether that is a formal or informal family. And it can take many forms whether that be via an understood pecking order, a parlimentary system, a despot, monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarian system, democracy, republic, or a board of directors, a homeowners' association, a city council, the NCAA, or whatever.

Anarchy also exists at many levels, but the higher level it goes, and the more people it involves, the more destructive the consequences of anarchy are likely to be.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, you're absolutely right. When i lived with my governments, they were very strict about the rules of the house. So i moved out and joined a government. Where we sold drugs and fought with other governments. I escaped that life and got a paying job ata government. The money was pretty good and they allowed me good vacation time. The only downfall was that the government of my governments government, took a lot of taxation from the pay.

Some days it makes me want to go back and live with my governments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is that your attempt at absurdia TASB?

In the normal family, the parents are the governing authority. The others can negotiate and barter and bargain, but if they refuse to accept the parents' authority, anarchy occurs and inevitably chaos and sometimes violence is the result. The parents may appoint an older sibling to have authority over the younger ones, but the younger ones have no ability to set rules. They can only negotiate for certain rules with the governing authority.

And yes, the more local government is subject to the government of the neighborhood association, and the community, and the state, etc. etc. etc. So government within government exists.

But if it has rules and anybody is given authority to enforce them, it is government.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So then there has never been any identifiable case of anarchy at all ever. Why were you arguing that somalia is an anarchic shithole?

it's clearly not anarchy there. In fact, it's never happened at all. In any case by that fast and loose use of terms.

Makes one wonder why family, clan, tribe, school, country club, community, organization, gang, militia, military, cartel, etc..are not synonymous with government. Clearly they are all governments.

Are we dizzy yet?

Anyway, Im bored with this merry-go-round to nowhere.

Peace.

 

[Asclepias]

So then there has never been any identifiable case of anarchy at all ever. Why were you arguing that somalia is an anarchic shithole?

it's clearly not anarchy there. In fact, it's never happened at all. In any case by that fast and loose use of terms.

Makes one wonder why family, clan, tribe, school, country club, community, organization, gang, militia, military, cartel, etc..are not synonymous with government. Clearly they are all governments.

Are we dizzy yet?

Anyway, Im bored with this merry-go-round to nowhere.

Peace.

Dont rupture a spleen I told you long ago there can never be an anarchy that lasts long term because 1 person will assume control in any given situation.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

i know you did, and like Fox, you're playing fast and loose with terminology. Hence why this thread is basically become a place fo being and listening to absurdity. there is absolutely no why to have an intelligent conversation regarding this subject if people aren't even sure how to properly identify and context terms, definitions, etc...