I've come across this statement/mantra a few times in recent days, whilest interacting with some of the local anarchist crowd.

I see the merit (although doubt the practicality) of the "no borders" idea, but with no law, how would the world handle what we currently call crime.

Anarchism is much-discussed subject as of late, but the people espousing this belief that I'm acquainted with, largely fall into one of two categories:

Intellectual-types who speak in philosophical, Utopian terms that leave me questioning their perceptions of reality
or
Disenfranchised youth (aka "angry young white guys") bent on destroying the current system, based on their dissatisfaction, but with little plan for the future.

Are there anarchists "in between" these two extremes? How does an anarchist suggest dealing with "unacceptable" behavior? How do things get done (roads built, sick cared for, yada yada)

Discuss amongst yourselves....:)

How does an anarchist suggest dealing with "unacceptable" behavior? How do things get done (roads built, sick cared for, yada yada)


I definitely can't speak for anarchists, but my friends have tried to explain to me the "personal responsibility" aspect of anarchy. Apparently they believe that, well, things will just "get done," while assuming that such a society would simply cooperate and handle things as necessary. (Personally, I can't help but say this sounds like baloney to me! :lol:)

This is a poor explanation, I know, so I was also wondering if people could explain this idea further. I've tried to talk about these ideas with my friends just to learn more, but haven't been very successful!

>>Intellectual-types who speak in philosophical, Utopian terms that leave me questioning their perceptions of reality>>

I fall into this camp.
I'm going to do a search and see if I can dig up previous answers to the same questions on this board (no offense, I just am a bit too busy to type something elaborate at the moment.).
...
Oh...what about the guy in your avatar? Wouldn't he be a good person to ask first? :)

ebola

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=43677

It looks like kirk is saying pretty much what I would've, only more eloquently. It eventually strays into extraneous discussion over whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchist.

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=28063

In the same thread, how did I get the patience to type this much? :

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showpost.php?p=639528&postcount=27


ebola

I definitely can't speak for anarchists, but my friends have tried to explain to me the "personal responsibility" aspect of anarchy. Apparently they believe that, well, things will just "get done," while assuming that such a society would simply cooperate and handle things as necessary. (Personally, I can't help but say this sounds like baloney to me! :lol:)

This is a poor explanation, I know, so I was also wondering if people could explain this idea further. I've tried to talk about these ideas with my friends just to learn more, but haven't been very successful!
If they believe that, they should see a 1st grade class of 24 under the direction of a first time want-to-make-them-happy substitute teacher. It is open season on the sub and anything goes.

>>If they believe that, they should see a 1st grade class of 24 under the direction of a first time want-to-make-them-happy substitute teacher.>>

And we haven't developed beyond the capacities of 6 year olds? :)

ebola

I think a lot depends on the credibility of the assumption that all the egoism, greediness etc. that we currently see would be just a reflection of the current hierarchical society.


Are there anarchists "in between" these two extremes?The local AR movement here has a lot of anarchists, and I would say they are somewhere in between. Categorizing anarchists as merely "angry youth" is the same tactic as is used in categorizing vegans as city folk who care about cute widdle animals - an inability and unwilligness to recognize difference of opinion (and a tendency to rationalize all difference to fit with the idea that the ordinary conservative opinions are the only rational ones).

>>If they believe that, they should see a 1st grade class of 24 under the direction of a first time want-to-make-them-happy substitute teacher.>>

And we haven't developed beyond the capacities of 6 year olds? :)

ebola
This will sound pretty negative, but IMO the majority of the human adults will be as bad as life allows them to be and as good as life forces them to be. The situations in life are what cause society to create rules/laws in the first place. If the potential for repeated behavior wasn't there, we wouldn't have to have a rule against it.

When I was young, my world was small and I knew only good people. I took a job in a situation where I met the spectrum of humanity and it opened my eyes to the potential for human depravity to nobility. I met people who abused their children in ways you can not imagine. I met a murderer, a rapist, an drunk who died two weeks later and orphaned her 3 children. I met parents who were so drugged up, that in their fog, they would maim, burn, stomp their children. I was the one who had to go to the jail to get parental permission signed to get their children entered in the hospital. But I also got to meet the wonderful people who rescued those battered little children.

The basic human being isn't too impressive unless someone has cared enough to teach him/her a better way to live, a higher purpose, to make a difference, to change the world. I really believe that has to be taught, and that it is not inborn.

I would think a gradual change in society, culture and people's personalities. In colonial America they had such a problem with people running off to live with Native Americans gave it a death sentence.

Don't assume anarchism doesn't get anything complicated/important done. Look at wikipedia. Fire and EMS in rural areas are usually volunteer (pretty close to anarchy considering mainstream society).
If they believe that, they should see a 1st grade class of 24 under the direction of a first time want-to-make-them-happy substitute teacher. It is open season on the sub and anything goes.
I would argue that is a result of culture. That wouldn't happen with a bunch of Japanese kids.
This will sound pretty negative, but IMO the majority of the human adults will be as bad as life allows them to be and as good as life forces them to be.
It would not be against Anarchism (or at least my interpretation) to dispose of such people.

>>The situations in life are what cause society to create rules/laws in the first place. >>

But what creates these situations in life? When we meet "bad people", we must also inquire as to the social conditions that created them. I would argue that the social structure that allows laws to be established is the same social structure that makes law as such necessary in the first place (as a dominant trend. There are, of course, other factors at play).

We cannot step outside of society, and consequently, we are not on firm ground to argue for human nature, bad or good.

>>
The basic human being isn't too impressive unless someone has cared enough to teach him/her a better way to live, a higher purpose, to make a difference, to change the world. I really believe that has to be taught, and that it is not inborn.>>

Why would we assume that evil could be inborn though?

ebola

I don't have enough faith in the average human being (who is a product of this world, and the various cultures in this world) to do good to think of worldwide anarchy with anything but horror. Even if we assume that 9 out of 10 people are basically decent, I fear the actions of the other 10% without a strong police power and a clear system of law. I suppose primarily because I feel fairly certain that I would not be one of the 10% in power-- I would be one of the other 90% just trying to stay alive (and unraped).

Why would we assume that evil could be inborn though?
Well, I think one could characterize many, if not most, of the things we think of as 'evil' as a kind of selfishness, and the evolutionary advantages of selfishness seem fairly clear. Michael Douglas said it best in Wall Street, "Greed is good!"

>>I don't have enough faith in the average human being (who is a product of this world, and the various cultures in this world) to do good to think of worldwide anarchy with anything but horror. Even if we assume that 9 out of 10 people are basically decent, I fear the actions of the other 10% without a strong police power and a clear system of law.>>

Once again, I don't think that we can conceive of people as "basically decent" or "basically bad". The question, then, is how do we work to create a participatory social structure that cultivates "decent" people?

>>Well, I think one could characterize many, if not most, of the things we think of as 'evil' as a kind of selfishness, and the evolutionary advantages of selfishness seem fairly clear.>>

I don't take much stock in these sorts of evolutionary arguments, as they are largely post-hoc; an evolutionary argument could quickly be spun up to describe the opposite.

ebola

In colonial America they had such a problem with people running off to live with Native Americans gave it a death sentence.

Source? And who was "they"?

Fire and EMS in rural areas are usually volunteer (pretty close to anarchy considering mainstream society).

Um, the ones I am familiar with have a set organization structure.

Fire and EMS in rural areas are usually volunteer (pretty close to anarchy considering mainstream society).


Um, the ones I am familiar with have a set organization structure.

I think what Hummusisyummus means is that fire and EMS in rural areas are provided by people who saw a need for these services and then just volunteered - for no financial gain for themselves, and not as part of any nation-wide organisation. Not that the volunteer services themselves have no structure.

<<<reading old threads. I didn't forget about this one, I'm just not sure what further questions I have (yet).

Ebola, I don't know that I think evil or good is inborn. I think we are like a blank sheet of paper that must be written on by something or someone or some happening to determine what we will become. An effort must be made to make that blank be more than just a reactor/receiver. It must be actively trained to be a doer and a changer and and a lifter, other wise it just lies there and gets trod on or messed up.

>>It must be actively trained to be a doer and a changer and and a lifter, other wise it just lies there and gets trod on or messed up.>>

Okay...so it sounds, then, that you are arguing that there are processes that cultivate evil, active processes.

ebola

I considered this on my bus ride to work today.

My punk rock friends all preach anarchy and murder the government, but show up to all of the save public healthcare rallies. That's a little hypocritical.

Without the government you would be hard pressed to accomplish anything on a large scale (like healthcare systems, education, etc...) because the nature of an object at rest is to stay at rest, and this rule extends to humans, I believe. You might motivate yourself and your neighbour, or even a group of neighbours, but eventually you get the interloper (in economics - a free rider) who takes but does not contribute and brings an enterprise from equilibrium to loss. Unless you can prevent interlopers (murder, perhaps?) you will probably encounter more failure than success, given the amount of people required to accomplish societal actions.

Is Somalia still in a state of anarchy?

anarchy is an impossibility imo

a system will always emerge, and will most likely look like all the other systems to come before.

if you remove the system thugs will create a new one, gangs will evolve into mafia-style organizations that will claim territory to oversee and economically rape the common people, possibly in some instances they will abuse their territories so much that the people feel compelled to violently take part or all of the territory from their opressors, then they will institute their own system etc etc until one day you have basically what we have now.

i look at anarchistic theory as purely mental masturbation that has no chance in hell of ever working in the real world. As such, people who are 'into it' are largely wasting their time. But if you find it interesting you have my permission to carry on. :p

I don't take much stock in these sorts of evolutionary arguments, as they are largely post-hoc; an evolutionary argument could quickly be spun up to describe the opposite.

one common misconception of the idea of evolution is that it means improvement, but all it really means is movement through time.

If humanity is getting dumber and dumber with each generation that is evolution. If for some reason we revert to neanderthal-like humanoids eventually that is also evolution. Evolution does not mean improvement.

I considered this on my bus ride to work today.

My punk rock friends all preach anarchy and murder the government, but show up to all of the save public healthcare rallies. That's a little hypocritical.
Well, I don't know. Although one's primary stance is that governments should be abolished, it doesn't mean that healthcare should be abolished too. Maybe your punk rock friends think:
a) healthcare can exist without government or
b) within the current system, having healthcare is better than not having it.
I don't see either as hypocritical.

Without the government you would be hard pressed to accomplish anything on a large scale (like healthcare systems, education, etc...) because the nature of an object at rest is to stay at rest, and this rule extends to humans, I believe. So what about private healthcare and private education? What about corporations? What about religious organisations? (some of which organize their own emergency aid.) What about charities? And not to forget, Open Source software and Linux :)

You might motivate yourself and your neighbour, or even a group of neighbours, but eventually you get the interloper (in economics - a free rider) who takes but does not contribute and brings an enterprise from equilibrium to loss. Unless you can prevent interlopers (murder, perhaps?) you will probably encounter more failure than success, given the amount of people required to accomplish societal actions.
Free riders are not a problem that would exist only within anarchist societies. We also have them in capitalism and authoritarian socialism. Yes, there are mechanisms in capitalism to discourage such behaviour. But why wouldn't it also be so in an anarchist society? In capitalism there is in addition a problem with "fat cats"; the people who exploit others and consume an undeserved large amount of resources. Authoritarian socialism also has a fat cat problem - people who manouver themselves into positions of power and exploit others and the system from there.

>>You might motivate yourself and your neighbour, or even a group of neighbours, but eventually you get the interloper (in economics - a free rider) who takes but does not contribute and brings an enterprise from equilibrium to loss.>>

The question, then, is whether non-hierarchical (and often non-codified) social pressure will be enough to reduce the free-rider problem to managable levels. I think it would, given that humans do not by nature maximize their individual material interests above all else.

>>a system will always emerge, and will most likely look like all the other systems to come before. >>

1. anarchism(s) is not a-systemic.
2. We have seen a variety of forms of social organization throughout history, some being very non-hierarchical.

>>
if you remove the system thugs will create a new one, gangs will evolve into mafia-style organizations that will claim territory to oversee and economically rape the common people>>

An anarchist society would need be built by anarchists (through revolutionary practice or perhaps through the evolutionary cultivation of new institutions), and the reproduction of anarchism would be predicated on continued anti-hierarchical vigilance.
...
And, frankly, I'm not sure that these thugs would be worse than those who currently run things. :)

>>i look at anarchistic theory as purely mental masturbation that has no chance in hell of ever working in the real world.>>

Pretty much all I do is mentally masturbate. I'm trying to make a career out of it on the state's tab.

>>one common misconception of the idea of evolution is that it means improvement, but all it really means is movement through time.

If humanity is getting dumber and dumber with each generation that is evolution. If for some reason we revert to neanderthal-like humanoids eventually that is also evolution. Evolution does not mean improvement.>>

This is all true, but also a non-sequitor.



ebola

Ebola, it may not be an intentional process, but yes, an active process on a child that creates a bad dominate side. I would have to have proof that a person was born that way.

Okay, after reading the old threads, two things have become apparent to me:

I seem to be getting dumber as I age, requiring multiple readings of some posts.

Discussing politics with ebola is dangerous to one's VB health, as evidence by the number of formerly regular posters (kirk, Acc. Veg, rev, rodolfo..) who seem to have taken long vacations from our fair site.

Rodolfo describes the kind of anarchism that is attractive to me..the more Utopian, less "destructive" variety:


I think that what is nessesary is human organization, but not nessesarily an authority or government.

Without human organization, even an authoritarian government fails; people starve, people die. Without any authoritarianism, a well organized community of free people can thrive.

His comment that the organized community can thrive though, leaves me wondering. How do we know that? Are there some examples of such societies? ebola says:
2. We have seen a variety of forms of social organization throughout history, some being very non-hierarchical. Share already....where are the societies that have successfully (I know the measure of success is debatable) this kind of organization?

>>It must be actively trained to be a doer and a changer and and a lifter, other wise it just lies there and gets trod on or messed up.>>

Okay...so it sounds, then, that you are arguing that there are processes that cultivate evil, active processes.

ebola

But what creates these situations in life? When we meet "bad people", we must also inquire as to the social conditions that created them.

Life and ebola (and HIY for that matter): are you saying that it's all "nurture", that there's no nature/inherency to evil? That sometimes people can just be born "programmed" in a bad way? Anectdotal evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Even if it is all nurture, how do end the "cycle". That is, how do we keep one person's bad deeds from affecting another. (this is one of the areas where I think laws help..protecting the innocent)


a system will always emerge, and will most likely look like all the other systems to come before.

if you remove the system thugs will create a new one, gangs will evolve into mafia-style organizations that will claim territory to oversee and economically rape the common people, possibly in some instances they will abuse their territories so much that the people feel compelled to violently take part or all of the territory from their opressors, then they will institute their own system etc etc until one day you have basically what we have now.

How do we know this to be true? Couldn't it be that people would gravitate toward the good in our nature instead of ending up in this kind of Lord of the Flies scenario. I don't suppose we can create some sort of lab experiment to test these ideas. :)

However, I can see your point when I think about my response to:

So what about private healthcare and private education? What about corporations?

There's no evidence to suggest that the desire for money (or power) wouldn't yet again overwhelm these institutions and lessen their value. The trouble is capitalism (which is probably why the other thread ended up discussing largely economic issues). But, if the elimination of capitalism is a requirement for the success of anarchal society, then surely that means that it's impossible. Even if the majority of society were to spurn capitalist ideas, couldn't that small group of dissenters wreak havoc by saying "hey, look what I've got over here if you'll just give me..."