Anarchy Good or Bad?

[PBL]

I never said anarchism was anti-democratic. Although without rule by the majority I don't see how it can be democratic. But thats neither here nor there.

As for your comment as regards fascism, look into englightened despotism, heres a name for you: Catherine the Great.

You didn't address the question that puzzles me the most. How do you deal with the non-anarchists in an anarchist society?

 

[august spies]

enlightend despotism is very orwellian, fascism works for the few, but under all fascist governments there is no freedom. without freedom things dont "work" for me.

i dont know why i didnt bring this up earlier but a great book on the subject(one of my favorites) is homage to catalonia by george orwell, hes a non fictional account of the events in spain where he was shot by a fascist fighting for democracy and expressed his sympathies towrds the anarchists.

to the non-anarchists, well most people who didnt want to join say an anarchist collective didnt, but most people did and it worked(actually people who initially didnt later joined) and it was no big deal. As for those militantly opposed, well they were off fighting with hitler and franco (i should say stalin as well)

if there was no war going on, well i would think the system would work fine, they would have the right to protest and publish what the want, but logic has it, if the system works he wouldnt win many people to his or her side.

 

[asutickler]

they would have the right to protest and publish what the want, but logic has it, if the system works he wouldnt win many people to his or her side.

Gee, apparently the current system works, then, since you don't seem to be winning many people to your "side"... 😀

 

[kurchatovium]

Are there taxes in this system I'm not certain if you answered that question? Also if you support militias do you believe in a person's right to keep and bear arms?

 

[PBL]

Yeah, the non-anarchist would be able to print and publish what he wanted, but without a structure what stops him from forming a posse and installing a hieriachal government?

Think about it. Lets imagine the TMF was a physical place, and we were all people living there. Now imagine its anarchy. Now whats to stop me, ASU, etc. from forming a group, and deciding we want to vote for a representative for example. Let's say ASU wins. All of a sudden we have a hieriachial structure again. There's no one in anarchist society to enforce the rule of no hiearchy.

Now take that same example, lets say someone decides he wants to create a fascist state. He grabs a bunch of his buddies and forces everyone to fall under his rule.

Anarchy has no method to keep itself in existence. The only method i can think of would be Deus Ex Machina. Whenever someone tried to introduce structure and /or hiearchy into the society have Zeus show up and stop them.

Now I am sure your going to point at Spain again, so let me try to head you off at the pass so to speak. In that case it worked, at least for a little while, because obviously the anarchists were an overwhelming majority. But what happens when they aren't the majority? Or even if they are a small majority, say 51%. The 49% non-anarchists could cause a lot of problems, even if they weren't united in what kind of non-anarchy they wanted, because they'd all be breaking the law, but part of anarchist law is no law-enforcement agency. That creates a hiearchy. once you have people deciding if and when others broke the law they have power over you. And it's not anarchy anymore.

in fascism: There are cops
in democracy: you have cops
in a republic: cops
in a monarchy: cops

Anarchy by definition can't have cops. People will break the laws of anarchy, and destroy the anarchist society.

The only way for anarchy to work is if EVERYONE is an anarchist. It is its fatal flaw, or maybe its biggest strength depending on how you look at it. I mentioned previously I was a libertarian, I am all for individual freedoms, and no government restrictions. But anarchy just isn't practical. Believe me, if I thought it was, I would be on your side. Anarchy makes a lot of sense, if everyone followed the rules. Not everyone will though.

 

[JoBelle]

Heavy reading before coffee. 😉

Base facts.
Theory is always good.
In theory, people agree to follow a path of consent. Be it a path to be governed, a path to be free, a path to share and be equal..blahblahblah. Theory is good.

Reality is not always good.
For theory to work in reality, people must be unchanging. Circumstances must be unchanging. Human nature must not enter the equation.

There will always be a cause that brings people together. When that happens, the rules instantly change. You can say the love of two individuals to marry and create a family is a prime example. Drew and Ann get hitched and give birth the Q, Strel, Mimi and Ray. *wink* Well, now, Jim across the river has a problem with Drew. Does Drew not rally Ann, and the rest of his family to create an alliance against Jim? Why yes! Yes he does....and Drew gets his brother's family involved too! Well, 'that there is the makin's of a clan'...the precursor to a village....to a town....to an entity requiring a leader with a platform in order for the resources of the town to be adequately dispersed in order to keep the other people in the other town from hustling it over to their side of the river. *Big Breath* Hmmm...a silly, and extreme example? OF COURSE it is. BUT, it is exactly what happens over and over in the history fo the world.

Anarchy is full of the hope of what would be right in the world if people were less than human.

Joby