Anarchy could never work.

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously, I think it could work, but we've already gone global and you can't undo that. So, say once we have a world government, then you could set up states on different principles: anarchy, communism, whatever you like. The world government would enforce the meta rules.

People are unreasonable and uncertain of the motives of those around them. Someone may act in "self-defense" for reasons which do not exist beyond paranoia or misunderstanding. Furthermore, who will determine when and how much self-defense is justified in a given situation? The majority? The majority are hardly philosophers or lawyers, nor are most of them qualified to be.



First off, in a proper democracy, people make their own decisions in government, albeit indirectly, without anarchy. Secondly, you failed to address my main concern, which is that people are not sufficiently intelligent or rational to "govern" (not sure what to call it--forgive my vocabulary ineptitudes) justly or properly. This seems to suggest that the majority opinion should be followed whether or not it actual makes any sense. The majority American view of evolution is a prime example. It is based on logical fallacy at best and religious rigidity and bigotry at worst.

Also, I had not considered the existence of laws within an anarchy (ie: those decisions made by individuals amongst themselves). I apologize if this impeded the progress of the discussion.

I think a very weak government is necessary but that government should not be ruled by one person or the rich.
The government should be a democracy run by the people.
I think that human nature does exist but some of it was created by capitalist society.
I am certain that human emotions can change a person and make them do something that they will regret latter.
This is the main reason why we need a week government.

I used to be attracted to anarchy, but the older I get, the more I realize that there really are just a lot of bad people out there.

Good people cannot defeat bad people simply by being good people. The bad people will always win if anarchy prevails. What stops bad people is fear of consequences, nothing more. And that is what the laws are for (even though the very people making the laws are often bad themselves). This is why I have been thinking a lot about what an alternative system might be.

I can't give a point by point argument of why I believe this, it is just something I believe in my heart.

I realize my argument sounds a little childish, but my brain is on low power right now, and I am not compelled to turn it on.

I agree with this.

Two things have to happen for that: schools have to teach civics and citizen responsibility intensely (ie. no apathy or "I like the color of his ties" votes), also we'd need to find ways to solve the culture where people vote on whoever is going to give them something either for free or whoever's voting for a candidate because their policies would be good for their particular career industry, company they work for, etc..

In essence we'd need a lot more altruism and common sense than we've been accustom to for a while. Not saying its a bad idea at all, just that to have a full participating democracy we'd need to do this AND we'd quite likely need to really put the teeth back in state's rights and budget responsibilities so that local citizenry are voting for something that has substantial impact to them.

Considering I too have no desire to do such things, I guess I am immune to human nature as well.

Also I think any laws would just be agreed upon codes of conduct........but that all depends on the specific form of anarchy and existance or lack of any form of society. Not sure though.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 03 Feb 2012, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're autistic and female. NT males will break any anarchic paradise.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly........but do know not all autistic females are the same and not all neurotypical males are the same.

And they'll break it because if they don't, NT females will take them for weak.

Yes - not everyones the same, there are neandrethal Aspie males and females as much as there are civilized NT's. Still, the animal instinct of self-dectruction and disobedience to prove strength, blood is thicker than water (water being facts or truths), etc. etc. etc. are things of the animal realm which we still adhere to strongly - mainly that there are genetically healthy, there are genetically unhealthy, we're accordingly attracted to the strong and the healthy, and much of most people's lives (who haven't been forced into involuntary buddhism by coping with disability and the consequences of living on the genetic blacklist) revolves around the mating game. Chasing power and prestige tends go back to back to the mating game. Desire for power and respect goes along withit albeit it also goes with our self-actualization tendencies which have similar and even shared roots (being able to accept and be comfortable on the bottom takes discipline and hard negotiation with self, learning to be comfortable at the top doesn't).

Now, I get it - tons of people would say that evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience, its unproven, etc., but they will say that evolution is hard science. Great. My own experience in trying to figure out the world was that I saw and believed this way from my own figurings long before I'd ever heard the word 'evolutionary psychology'. It's given me a wonderfully short and abbreviated way of explaining it but, when you look at human behavior, it boils down to nearly identical things. Do you get extra tertiary stuff from our enhanced awareness of self? Yes, but the existence of those things seems to just add to the top rather than erase what's below it. We're sentient and can make rational choices - yes; can, should, would, and most often don't.

If humans have the intelligence/abilities to create all this technology, I'd think we could find a way to live that everyone can benefit from not just those who make it to the top via doing anything they can to get there regardless of how it effects anyone. I mean it's gotten to the point where I find it childish to argue that things are ok as they are because it's just human nature......nice excuse, hell if human nature is no different then having to kill and compete for limited resources why call it human nature? Because that's just basic animal nature that certainly serves its purpose for animals that don't have the means to accomplish technological advances or form a real society as they have no other way such is their circle of life......maybe there is no such thing as human nature then.

To say that means you're still missing a lot:

Why are sports so big? Why is the pecking order in school the way it is? What exactly is pettiness at the fundamental level? Why is a guy or girl living at home with his/her parents or even just renting somewhere considered a loser? Why is disability still disgraceful almost anywhere? Why is geekiness disgraceful for that matter? Why do both genders treat each member of the opposite gender so disparately that two people can be the same person inside, say the same exact things, and get radically different outcomes? Why for that matter do men need to be violent to have made their right of passage or women need to be sanctimoniously corrupt to have passed theirs? The 'meh, people are stupid' 'Meh, people are societally conditioned to be pigs' 'Meh, people just are that way' doesn't sweep these things under the carpet. With the source of those things still intact any form of anarchy will cannibalize itslef into despotism or, a reamalgamation of capitalism.

Conditioning plays a role in most of those, except sports is just entertainment and people naturally like entertainment....but yeah none of those other things are actual truths or actual human nature.

A guy or girl living with their parents or renting somewhere is not a loser, disability is not disgraceful, geekiness is not disgraceful, people in general tend to treat each other like crap which is something I think is more conditioned or influenced by the environment/society then natural human behavior. Just because you think capitalism is the only system that will ever function does not actually make it the case...nor does it make it human nature.

and what exactly is it I am missing?

In a different sense nothing. You, peebo, and adamantium seem to have all the bases covered; that animals have scarcity and poverty, humans have always had scarcity and poverty, and hence there is no such thing as a valid historical precedent or valid example because it cannot exist at this point. You've in a sense created an infalsiable claim that cannot be tested right now, cannot be disputed, and along your own lines both my statements and your statements can't be tested so therefor your own preferences win. It runs into intellectual honesty problems galore of course but what the heck; it wins an internet debate right?

So can aspies! Some can be manipulative,insulting and arrogant, Not much deferent from NT's so I don't see why they get all of the blame.

My theory is that human nature refers to human emotions and the need to survive.
Emotions such are anger,fear and jealousy can corrupt your mind.

I think that all humans are equal but some have different needs and feelings. This make some government necessary.
Sweetleaf, human nature does not cause people to murder and rape others. The desire to murder come from mental illness.
Self-defense is another story.