Anarchy could never work.

Post Reply New Topic

The north American Indians had a leader that would be similar to weak government.
As far as I know anarchists have no government or laws. Does that mean murder is okay?
The Indians were closer to a socialist society.

By the way I do agree with you that complete anarchy wouldn't work. I actually like the idea of having tribal based government with alliances like the First Nations had. I think complete anarchy and the kind of government we have now are both equally bad in different ways.

i think that the original poster is fundamentally lacking any understanding of the differences between individualist and collectivist variants of anarchism. unfortunately this is a common problem, with most people's understanding of the term being based upon the "demonised anarchist" that is a result of biased media reporting etc. often relating to animal rights extremists and people who initiate violent confrontation at political protests and demonstrations.

anarchism does not in any way specifically imply a complete lack of organisation and co-operation. it is generally based upon egalitarian principles and values human freedom and the upholding of rights. there is a wealth of philosophical and theoretical literature focused on this area, here is a quick and easy introduction, not all of which i necessarily agree with but that at least points out some general concepts and outlines common misconceptions.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001634.html

it is disappointing that even in your betrayal of a complete lack of even a basic understanding of anarchism whatsoever that you would consider yourself able to decry it as being completely unworkable in practice. you obviously believe you are of better and more sound judgement than centuries of great thinkers who came before you, even in your profound lack of understanding.

lack of an authoritarian state does not in any way specifically imply lack of co-operation or social organisation.

Last edited by peebo on 29 Jan 2012, 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

OP is right. Without laws enforced by the state, us humans would default to our natural state of killing anyone who gets in our way and using our basic survival instincts to just fend for ourselves. We're very primitive creatures really.

when did we move past them??

Anarchy would be a great way to shed our current governemnt, but SHHHH, don't let them know about the plan!

Is everyone oblivious to the notion that humanity has become increasingly ruthless and cruel since the dawning of nation states?

everyone is

yes, exactly. saying there are two choices: chaos or a fed-type state is a false dictonomy.

given we appear to agree on this point, why would you then be so quick to rule out any form of anarchism as unworkable?

According to Stephen Pinker (who supports his position with statistical data) on the whole we are less ruthless and cruel now than we were during the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages. There is still cruelty by the statistical probability of being murdered has gone down in most civilized nations.

ruveyn

indeed.
I'll add that actually, anarchy works every day.
For example: every time someone chooses to wait in line for something rather than cut ahead even though they would not be arrested for doing so, that is in fact effective functional anarchy.

So you're telling me if the government fell apart right now........I would turn into a psychopath who kills anyone who get's in my way? I don't think so.

No no, you'd be killed by the psychopaths who kill everyone who get in their way.

You know it's not like I can't shoot a gun...provided I had one and needed to use it. I certainly am not going to go around murdering people but I'll certainly defend myself.

i don't find his argument convincing. examining some ancient skeletons and extrapolating this to what he claims seems far fetched to me. much of his statistics are simply gross estimates relating to historical incidents that no-one could ever claim to be closer than a ball park figure, and those that aren't are based on such things as censuses that can't really be relied upon as accurate in relation to the claims he uses them to justify.

in addition - and although i am familiar with the gist of the better angels of our nature i haven't read all of it, so do argue the point if you disagree - it appears that his definition of violence is far too narrow, focusing solely on actual physical violence. institutional violence and the ever implied threat of violence perpetuated by the state doesn't appear to have a look in.

it's also not completely relevant as things such as the slave trade, the annihilation of native americans etc. are quite clearly the work of the state and actually support my point.

so unfortunately his argument is full of holes and in addition not entirely relevant.