Discussions
Can anarchy work?
Posted by RMania • 9/19/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: anarchy, Government, law
After reading some of Anok's interesting blog posts supporting an anarchic form of society, there are still quite a few reasons why I think it would never work, even if somehow we could get everyone to initially agree to it.
One of my main objections is that, in a country like the US filled with 300 million people, it would just be a disaster without some uniform set of enforceable laws, and a reliable enough method of holding accountable for their transactions.
If a society is completely lawless, then I suppose there is also no law enforcement authority to carry out criminal investigations. So how exactly do we hold people accountable? What if somebody's home is robbed and there are no eyewitnesses? Too bad for the victim? What if somebody murders someone, again no eyewitnesses, but claims it was in self-defense? How do we know when such claims are credible when there is no investigation carried out by properly trained authorities?
I'm under no illusion that the criminal justice system in my country is imperfect; it's full of bureaucracy and corruption, and this is part of Anok's argument. But I still maintain that it is the best possible system, especially considering the extremely large and diverse group of people bound by it. Anok's vision of an anarchic society as I understand it involves tribal communities with "house rules" that are instilled in its members through proper education during their youth, thus eliminating most major conflicts between people. It sounds very idealistic to me, as do all forms of governance when you talk about them in theory. Also, different communities are sure to have different moral rules and behaviors. What happens when they clash? It seems bound to happen, just as Native American tribes often clashed before and after Europeans appeared on this continent.
I'm interested to see Anok's response, as well as anybody else here of course.
User Comments
-
Wow, No responses so far? I'll be the first!
I think it's prudent to point out that one of the ultimate goals of Anarchism is to eradicate inequality, and poverty.
One of the leading causes of crime is poverty - so to eradicate it, you have substantially lowered the risk of needing the type of laws and investigations you speak about, because the types o crimes that are most often committed wouldn't be so prevalent.
Home invasion, robbery, drug use - all of these are indicators of desperation.
Of course, you still have some wackos out there, and there is no reason that groups can't come together - continue to use technology and logic and find a way to deal with someone like - you know - Gacey.
No laws simply means that - it doesn't mean no rules. There's that tricky aspect of legitimacy at play.
Also, I wrote a post a while back addressing the set up of the US, and how Anarchism is very similar - only without the superstructure of a hierarchy.
US government is like this:
Federal, states, counties, towns(cities), districts. It's a pyramid, right? But the focus is on representation on the two smallest levels of the pyramid (or the top two) state and federal. By this time the representation is too far removed from the constituents to be legitimate bearers of laws, rules, or agreements.
Well in Anarchism, the focus is on the largest, bottom most levels. It starts with families, or tribes, and works up to neighborhoods, districts, then towns and so forth.
In that way, the people are actually representing themselves.
OK, I've only had one cuppa this morning, and I have to bake cookies for Mabon - so, I'll come back later and we'll talk. This is good stuff!-
Well in Anarchism, the focus is on the largest, bottom most levels
In other words, is it more or less like the Direct Democracy where the citizen is more power ? (Which is in contrast to representative democracy which is practiced widely)
For example in Switzerland, where there's Half-Direct Democracy, any citizen can change a law and even propose and amendment to the constitution, provided they are able to receive a certain amount of signatures within a certain timeframe, after which a national vote is scheduled. -
Yes, it is much more like direct democracy - only, as of now, on a smaller scale. And without any real "laws" per se.
-
"One of the leading causes of crime is poverty", That made me snort. Then, you go on to say that the criminal justice system is full of corruption. Do you think that has to do with the large amounts of money involved?
I disagree, I would think that the leading cause of crime is money.
If a poor person breaks the law, you call it "crime". If a rich person breaks the law, you call it "Corruption". Sounds like you have a double standard. -
One of the leading causes of crime is poverty
I'll believe that when criminals start stealing sandwiches and blankets. -
I have to agree with Mike on this--and I'm not speculating. In my years as a criminal defense lawyer I saw a lot of people in bad circumstances acting out of desperation, or because they didn't know anything else. But I saw at least an equal number who acted out of a sense of entitlement, a perception that there was something about them that made them somehow too special to work for a living like the average person, or simply because there's a lot of money to be made in certain areas of criminal endeavor. For many, it's the same kind of "get rich doing nothing" mentality that drives the "how can I make six figures blogging fifteen minutes a day" crowd, except that they're willing to cross the line. I won't debate the "leading cause" of crime, because I don't think it matters which noses ahead--a substantial cause of crime is greed. Look at organized crime; look at corporate embezzlers--the world is full of criminals who have other options but find it easier or more appealing to make their money in a way that is destructive to others. -
OK, well about the leading cause of crime is a lack of money - lack of access to a good education, and a lack of access to social programs that aren't welfare based? (IE, poverty)
Also, corruption and crime are two different things.
Scratching someone's back for a favor - albeit unethical, is not illegal in all cases. Corruption doesn't have to be an illegal, criminal act.
Also, Tiffany, I would argue that organized crime came out of very impoverished times, neighborhoods, and situations.
Gangs don't exist or form in wealthy affluent neighborhoods, but they do in the ghettos. There is a reason for that. Mafioso type gangs came out of the impoverished times after the Depression, and so forth. Look at violent crime rates in impoverished countries - much higher than in affluent countries (where the wealth is evenly distributed among the populace).
When the average person is content, well fed, healthy and able to remain healthy, safe, and well educated - crime goes down. They aren't likely to go out and rob someone just for the hell of it.
Now, of course, crime also exists because of psychological problems (abuse, violence, rape, serial killers megalomaniacs) and because of undue greed ("White collar" crimes).
But tell me, how many of the criminals that you see in prison are from well to do families? How many are living at or below the poverty level? How many have college educations, or even high school diplomas?
Let's be real here. -
By the way, FP, people here get nailed for stealing food from grocery stores all the time. It got so bad that the stores implemented a store monitoring security system that rivals those in banks.
Seriously. -
I have to tell you, Latinos overall are a perfect example of how becoming independant, Moving away from trouble and living a different life makes you point come across clear.
Another group that I noticed are really advancing really fast is Black Females. Oddly enough though, Black males don't seem to be following in their footsteps. At my job there is one position that has grown from a 30 person unit to 70 person unit. Before there were 3 Latin Males, 1 Asian Male, 3 Latin Females, 1 Black Male and the rest Black Females. The new batch that has come in looks more like this. 2 Black Males, 1 White Female, 4 Latin Females, 2 Latin males and the rest of the 40 are Black Females.
Sadly this also has to do alot with how Males dont play a father figure and single females have to go into the workplace to better their childrens lives.
I'm sleepy and ranting (Dangerous Combo) so if something sounds off please pay no attention
-
Very few of the criminals I "see in prison" come from well-to-do families, but that is a VERY different question from "how many of the people who commit crimes come from well-to-do families?" Maybe the key, if you're set on calling it "lack of money", is that "lack of money" has different meanings for different people. Remember how those Merck executives decided it would be a good idea to kill a bunch of people in order to increase their profits by $229 million? I'm sure they felt they'd be "lacking" money if they'd taken that cut.
I don't know whether or not I agree with your assertion that statistically more crimes are committed by poor people--I think the truth is that more poor people are ARRESTED and CHARGED and CONVICTED. But in a sense, it doesn't matter because, as you pointed out, the crimes the big boys commit do a lot more damage, and those are the very people against whom the average citizen would be even more powerless without some kind of legal framework. Just imagine, for instance, if the pharmaceutical companies that have openly indicated their willingness to kill their own customers didn't have even a weak process like FDA approval to pass through. -
I don't disagree with your opinion on which kind of crime does more damage to unsuspecting people. Not one bit.
But let's not get semantical here about what poverty is, and the crime difference between rich neighborhoods (wealthy families) and poor neighborhoods (poor families).
You may have a couple of rich college students getting into trouble over smoking pot - but compare that to the people in the ghetto with the meth lab - and i hope you see the difference.
I now live in a "nice neighborhood" (well to do) where the crime I worry about most is small potato vandalism from the neighborhood kids. My last neighborhood - which was urban and in a poor section of the city - was a common place for prostitution, crack houses (our road was know as "crack house alley"), violent pimps, heroin dealers, drive by shootings, and murders. several of which occurred not 30 feet from my doorstep. (Plus some attempted murders, one of which was my neighbor when her live-in pimp tried to kill her, and the guy below us had a smack user OD in the Apt)
I'm sure the poverty level of the neighborhood had nothing to do with that though.
-
-
Ah, It's yet another one of those complex issues that I hate to pick a side on. Anyway, The only way for Anarchy to find it's way into this country today is for it to happen like the original Anarchists of this country did.
The Founding Fathers of this country are both the most American and most Un-American people in todays terms. They were the people that gave us our building blocks to become whatever the People in control wanted. They were also the same men that broke away from the restraints of a Government that treated their people like our Government treats us today.
If any group tryed what they tryed today they'd be taken away with military force and men in large black SUVs. Same was true back then but atleast the Founding Fathers had the home-field advantage. Something that no American has today.
So yeah, As fun as that sounds until something happens i'll just keep aware but silent.-
Yup. Exactly.
Although I do believe that a slow, progressive process could unveil an Anarchist or Anarchist leaning system.
Which would really be the best way to do it. Anarchists are sometimes faced with the dilemma of force. While we rail against force, some want to create the change quickly, and forcefully through revolution - and while that may have some merits, it's also a question of forcing unwilling, or unsuspecting people into yet another "system" they may not want or be ready for.
But I do believe the founding fathers wee on to something - making the states - not the country - the driving force, thus decentralizing the government. That's a very Anarchist idea. -
The original thought was to have a system that was for the people. What better way than to have all States be their own. Sadly the conflict comes with greed, As some states with more power needed to fight for their intrests and the weaker states also had their own intrests they gave into letting one government take control. With that States become nothing more than Cities where things are neglected as always.
Whats pathetic is seeing people this Election Season get all hot over Politics because it'll have a "Effect" on how they live when it should be the Politics in their neighborhoods they should be involved in looking into. It seems like the majority of the people who follow the local level is above the age of 60....
About the whole use of force thing, It just seems to throw any point that is logical or valid out the window. Instantly you are labeled a terrorist which is infact what you become. The thing that kept the founding fathers from being a Terroist in my opinion is like as said before, They were pushing an enemy off of "their" land. On this side, Anarchists who resort to violence are pretty much equal to any other group of people that would come from any other land using force to put their point across. -
The idea of forceful revolution is to spark the potential that all humans have to wake up, stand up, and make change happen.
But like you said, they are labeled terrorists. As were our forefathers, by the way. Traitors, extremists, troublemakers (I doubt terrorist was a buzz word then). But North America was not "our land" not in any sense. It just seemed like it was because of the large ocean between the actual ruler, and us.
Edit:
With regards to local politics - while I agree with you (as I am very active locally) I also disagree in the sense that Federal legislation has a much greater an immediate effect on us than local legislation does, save for state law changes.
SO yes, we are facing a huge problem that can't be fixed on a local level right now. local governments can't go to war, can't change foreign policy, and can't create national laws...hence the excitement over whoever is at the helm for the next 4 - 8 years. -
Yup, Thats why I said "their" land.
As for the local politics, While it's very true that they will be playing a huge factor for things like war and the such we still need to focus on whats happening at home. You could be focused on how the country's education might be improved and meanwhile your homestate's education is down the tubes. Same thing with healthcare, It's meaningless on getting the government to pass money along to your State if it isn't used properly.
The perfect example is down here in Florida. A while ago there were two cities trying to get support in a movement to split Florida into North Florida and South Florida because of major issues. Those being that the Capital being in the North has more intrest in improving Healthcare and Education up there. All while down here you have a bad Healthcare system where the elder who only live off their retirements of $450 a month and wait for weeks to get treatments they need. And forget the Education, Down here in Miami-Dade the kids are dumb as bricks.
I remember I must of brought this issue up to hundreds of people since i've been following the issue and even though they say various things are wrong down here they mock the idea of Splitting the State so we can have a Capital that is closer to where everything happens.
Anyway, I've always found it funny that we have a Capital thats a 6-10 hour drive from the biggest city in the State so I see nothing wrong with splitting a State like Florida.
Oh jeebus, Let me stop. I'm ranting and rambling. -
LOL, I totally agree with you. Rant away, man.
Of course, teh New ENgland states are actually quite small in size, so we don't have the same kind of problem as you are discussing.
I've always wondered how states so huge as Florida, Texas, and California operate smoothly.
It just seems too big, too far removed and far too much diversity with regards to wealth (or lack thereof), education, etc. -
I was raised around the good ol' Tri-State area and I gotta tell you this part of the South is dumb, Shocking as that may seem. I experienced in my Senior Year of high-school work that you'd expect out of a 8th grader in Newark. The sad part was that this was a good school with the fancy buildings and pep that schools up north don't have.
I'm not the only one that has experienced this. Alot of New Yorkers and Jersey people say the same thing. Let's just put it like this, History classes in my Senior Year wasn't even deep enough to even cover any form of Anarchy in History. Rather they were still wrapping their minds around the Civil War, Black History and Slavery. So narrowminded it seems.
That's only good thing I find about the calmer Anarchists. They know more about history and politics than even the average college student.
And talking about California, I've always thought of California to be an interesting part of the country where one moment you seem to be in yuppie land then on the other side of the bridge it doesn't even seem to be the same State.
To get the topic back on Anarchism for one second, Only one, Is it me or does there seem to just be more Anarchist movements on the West Coast than anywhere else in this Country? If so, Whats happening there that isn't elsewhere? -
I'm not sure why, actually.
Then again, the west coast seems to have a lot going on with politics, social activism, etc.
Maybe it's the water. -
"Anyway, I've always found it funny that we have a Capital thats a 6-10 hour drive from the biggest city in the State so I see nothing wrong with splitting a State like Florida"
Wouldn't that concept apply to the U.S. as a whole? Does it make any sense at all to have one country with such vast disparities of economic conditions, natural resources, cultural mentalities, industries, etc? When we were the loose association of states that we were intended to be, perhaps, but now that we have this strong central government? -
Nope, It makes no sense at all. I guess the best explaination is that this Government is like a Workforce Union. Meant to cover your ass and protect your rights in exchange for fees but in return it makes the job harder for you while they cover someone elses ass. Maybe they'll throw you a bone every now and then but it's mostly to shut you up. And if you make too much trouble they take care of you like those old Mobster run Unions back in the day if you get what I mean.
Bah, I been awake for over 30 hours, I dont even know what I mean so I think i'll be passing out now. Pay what I said no mind. If anything i'll do damage control later when I wake up. -
Tiffany, I would agree that our form of government is no longer working properly for the size of the country for that very reason.
-
-
my answer is "no"-
I trust no one who eats cats.....
-
How do you know?
-
-
In order for anarchy to work, you will need some kind of body who ensures that anarchy is upheld. Paradox.
-
Not necessarily. Why would you with a self regulating populace?
-
1. Because suggest that a self-regulating populace already exists. That's the entire point of the right to bear arms.
2. On an individual level, how would you prevent people from stealing, murdering, raping, pillaging? There's no law, right? So these may be frowned upon, but there's no official rule against them, so there's no official body to prevent them from happening. Who is going to prevent them from happening, and on what authority? What would give anyone the authority to punish another person?
3. On a group level, the big guys are going to organise themselves on top with the little guys at the bottom again. This 'class struggle' is the basis of civilisation.
Who is going to prevent anyone from enforcing their version of anarchy? In an anarchic society, would a corporation like Enron be discovered? And on what basis could you claim that they did wrong? How would you punish them when you don't have an objective organisation or a concept like the rule of law to turn to? -
I've answered these questions millions of times, here on the board and on my blog. I know you've read them, why ask me again?
You need to stop thinking in the confines of how we live today and how we are taught we should live and start thinking about how we actually can live. -
You need to stop thinking in the confines of how we live today and how we are taught we should live and start thinking about how we actually can live.
I'm sorry, but I can't. How we live today is reasonable. Anarchy is irrational. I've read some of your blog and frankly my questions are not answered sufficiently. I would not like to live in an anarchist utopia.
-
-
this is a very interesting discussion... -
ekim941
"One of the leading causes of crime is poverty", That made me snort. Then, you go on to say that the criminal justice system is full of corruption. Do you think that has to do with the large amounts of money involved?
I disagree, I would think that the leading cause of crime is money.
If a poor person breaks the law, you call it "crime". If a rich person breaks the law, you call it
i agree with you ekim941. money can buy justice and law...-
Martha Stewart, O.J. Simpson, The Kennedy kids, Enron, etc.
Rich people break the law but mostly poor people go to jail for it. -
This is true - but statistically speaking more poor people are committing more crimes on a daily basis.
It's just that when a rich person commits a big crime, they negatively affect a hell of a lot more people. (Enron) -
Then let's get rid of the poor!
-
"but statistically speaking more poor people are committing more crimes on a daily basis."
The funny part about that statement is that it cannot be proven because we have no record of the people that get away with it or can afford good lawyers.
It might be better to say that more poor people are getting caught and convicted. -
What we do have are criminal records, studies of violence in poor neighborhoods (see my comment below) and history of criminal records to show that - it's the poor people in impoverished neighborhoods who are committing more crimes
Unless you are under the impression that there are secret, affluent white gangs from wealthy neighborhoods who run prostitute rings and drug rings and do drive by shootings when no one is looking?
Or, maybe you are just saying that the majority of people in the US are committing crimes on a regular basis, and just not being caught.
We are all robbing stores at gun point, raping innocent women, running drugs, number, and ho's, laundering money for the companies we don't own, and regularly break into other's homes.
Is that about right? I mean, are you really trying to say that there are loads of wealthy criminals out there who just haven't been caught yet, and that the violent crimes rates that are through the roof in impoverished neighborhoods are just a scam? A mistake?
Come on. -
"Unless you are under the impression that there are secret, affluent white gangs from wealthy neighborhoods who run prostitute rings and drug rings and do drive by shootings when no one is looking?"
No, I think it is feasible that a man could accidentally shoot himself in the head with a pneumatic air gun 26 times from different angles.
I think it is more likely that he was the victim of some paid muscle from organized crime and was too scared to tell the police.
Poor people cannot afford proper legal representation, Law enforcement officers don't make a lot of money and bribery goes a long way. Some crimes are more complex than the common man can comprehend, does insider trading differ from armed robbery? Many people don't even know what that is, much less think that it is robbery.
The statistics are very flawed. I understand your point, I just disagree with your scope and the information that you are going on.
-
-
Forgive the length of this - I feel the urge to elaborate. I want to introduce you to my world. I’m 12 miles from the nearest living soul, down a road that can sometimes only be traversed with 4 wheel drive vehicles. I have 5 strands of barbed wire around my entire 25 acre plot, and a locked entry gate. I have plainly posted the land against hunting and trespassing. It takes an officer of the Law exactly 45 minutes to reach my location IF they happen to be familiar with the area - longer if they’re aren’t a “local”. For the most part, we are literally our own world here - our own little secluded and separated - world.
In our world, the crime rate is very low. What crime we’ve experienced here has been driven by a combination of poverty and addiction - almost equally. Drug addicts looting the barns and tool sheds for things they can sell to buy drugs, and impoverished people looting the same for gasoline, tires, tools, and even food and grain. I have had hogs, chickens, cattle, goats, even horse stolen. Sometimes they were stolen for food, sometimes they were stolen and sold for money.
In my world the Law cannot get here fast enough to be of any use what so ever. I have to confront the crime here myself - armed sometimes with as little as my left shoe and a bad attitude. Yet - because of laws in the country - I cannot legally take further actions. I cannot harm, much less inflict fatal injury - over the theft of property. The only time I can cause harm or inflict injury legally is if it’s in self defense. Remember I said I’m 12 miles from the nearest living soul… there’s no witnesses here.
I’ll leave you on your own to reason this out, most of you know exactly where I’m going with this train of thought - I don’t actually want to type the possible implications out on the internet.
So in MY world, Anarchy is the ONLY thing that makes a lick of sense. I’m not being protected anyway. I’m having to take matters into my own hands already - and hope to gawd I never have to go any further than my left shoe and all 7 cuss words that I know.-
"because of laws in the country - I cannot legally take further actions."
See, This is one thing that really bothers me. You have an invader in your space and unless he is pretty much shooting or stabbing you, You have no choice but to call for help. In some places you can't even hold this person in place for the proper justice to get there because it counts as false imprisonment.
But let's flip it on the other side. Let's say you have a stranger simply overstay his welcome in a Government building and thats enough reason for them to send thousands of volts into your body. Hell, Even the simple act of protest without permit is enough to shot of pepper spray in your eye no matter if you are being peaceful (But resistant) while surrounded by a dozen sworn citizens.
Sadly this is the united states and days of Armed Militia groups made up of neighbors have been replaced by Neighborhood Watch groups armed with whistles, flashlights and cell phones. It's a shame that you can be labeled vigilante for doing something as simple as protecting your surroundings.
One last thing: I think if this Country went the other way with guns and had EVERY able-minded Adult have a gun by law this Country would see a drastic drop in violent crimes like armed robbery and rape. But sadly the arguement always goes to "But what about the road rage people who will end up having gun fights in the middle of traffic". Once again I think it would go the other way around, The only reason someone who is in a rage pulls out a gun is to show a level of threat to someone who they know most likely is un-armed. Now lets see how the cards show if that same person KNEW the other driver was armed, And not only him but the other dozen cars surrounding him in traffic.
I know it sounds like some chaos Wild Wild West theory but one thing we need to remember is that alot of those gun fights in the Wild Wild West were more rare than we are led to expect for the same reason as noted above. -
Anna, what you say makes a lot of sense in the circumstances you describe--but you realize that the vast majority of people in the United States don't live in such circumstances, right? Do you think anarchy would work equally well in an area where a million people are packed into 100 square miles?
@MPD: I have some concerns about your statement "the only reason someone who is in a rage pulls out a gun..." Rage, by its very definition, is unreasoned. If everyone was behaving rationally, almost everything about the way we interact would be different. -
Anna I thoroughly agree with you.
I'm tired of having to wait for someone else to show to help me sort out my problems with someone when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself.
Tiffany, it could work that way quite well - it takes the police just as long to get to my house as it does to hers - response time is slow and that's if they show up. (In my old neighborhood, the only thing that brought them out was a shooting).
We take care of business ourselves.
Just yesterday, in fact, we solved our neighborly parking problem, in an Anarchist fashion. The law had nothing to say about it, and could not help us in any way. (The neighbor already tried that route - to no avail).
SO we waited a while till the frustration came to a head, had an argument, calmed down, and worked it out.
Now there is no problem, and no hard feelings.
Amazing, we didn't need the law to settle our dispute, the police couldn't settle our dispute - but WE could. That's the way it works. -
Anok, my question didn't relate to how long it took the police to arrive, but to the crime rate. Anna said that there was very little crime in her neck of the woods; some blocks have several crimes of varying seriousness every day. What you propose sounds great for the strongest members of society--those who have multiple adults in the house and so can sleep in shifts and have someone standing guard, and who have the physical ability and knowledge to use weapons and all that. What is it like for the elderly woman with poor vision living alone?
There's a bit of a difference between settling a parking dispute and "settling" a matter of one person wanting to rob or rape or kill another. -
I understand that Rage is unreasoned, Really that statement was the result of badly phrasing something while on 30 hours without sleep. It's like typing while drunk, Not a good idea.
Anyway, What I meant by that is someone in a "Road Rage". If you go by reports of people who pull out a weapon be it a gun or something else versus those who actually did something there would be a big difference.
Seeing as the worst City for Road Rage is in my State we have this as a common thing to see even if not reported on the news.
So what I meant is that the purpose of those in road rage who pull out a weapon is not so much to do action but to get re-action. -
Tiffany, how do the police help elderly women sleep better at night? What, we feel assured knowing they could be here in an hour? I'd bleed out by that point if someone decided to stab me. There is no reassurance there.
And yet, we don't have people sleeping in shifts and acting like guards.
The police aren't standing guard either - and the time it takes to answer a call is directly related to exactly that problem. Victims of violent crime are already dead or just about by the time the police gets there - hence the high crime rates, and victim fatalities in violent areas. -
Yeah, Seeing as this part I live in tends to have a large ammount of people who only speak spanish calling 911 is a painful thing to do.
On average i've found that it's been anywhere between 15 seconds to a minute to even talk to the proper person. And yeah, Once you get on the line with the proper Operator thats it's own mission at times.
I remember one time while working some skater kids set a fire on the property and were jumping over it. I called 911 for this to avoid any conflict seeing as I was there that night alone and there were a good dozen of them with lighter fluid and nothing better to do.
Over the span of 15 minutes I got switched from a Police Operator to a Fire Operator because each one would say this is an issue for another. I remember laughing as being asked "Is anyone hurt" for the tenth time because as I said no, One of them busted his ass while trying to get over the fire.
I just ended up getting to the point that I just hung up and didn't care anymore. -
I called the cops one time to report LARGE illegal fireworks being set off in a dangerous place and he told me "My shift is ending in ten minutes. If they're still there, call back." And hung up.
Another time I reported shots being fired and that I saw where the shooter ditched the gun, not only did they not stay on the line with me - but the cops didn't show up until like, four hours later.
By that point, the shooter, and the gun was long gone.
*shakes head* -
It's not any better when you try to go and file a report a crime. I remember months ago there was a neighborhood that had dozens of cases of gas being stolen from their cars every week. When people went in to make reports they were treated pretty much like as if they were at the DMV. In one case a man had to wait five minutes because the girls at the desk were too busy talking about shoes.
I can't tell you how many times I saw the same old faces come in to report repeat thefts and all they were told was that there is nothing we can do. The most angry seemed to be the older people there, Alot with the same thing on mind.
"So if I see this person stealing my gas what good is it going to do to call when you don't take the issue serious as it is now. Now if I were to go and beat him down with a bat i'd be in the wrong wouldn't I and there would be no problem for you guys with dealing justice to convict me of what I did". That came out of the mouth of an enraged 70something year old man and he is right. No matter how much this man stole, It wouldn't be the focus on hand if this man went out there with a bat to defend his property. -
Anok, I'm sorry that your experience of law enforcement is so negative. I can't speak to a particular hypothetical situation and know whether police might have arrived in time or been inclined to do something about it--there are a lot of bad cops out there and I've seen them do a lot of negative things. But having worked in domestic violence for years, I know a number of women and children who are alive because of them--myself included.
It's all well and good to assert that you do just fine without law enforcement--and without anyone standing guard--but you don't live in a world without laws, in which the person with the greatest strength automatically wins, so your current experience really has no application in this discussion. -
The point that I was making was that even though law enforcement doesn't get there on time, and doesn't stand guard, and doesn't actually prevent anyone from becoming a victim of crime - no one is sleeping in shifts, as you stated above.
We are not guarded from harm (any of us) - there is no guarantee of safety, and yet, we still sleep well at night.
My experiences, by the way, are common here (in my state/city not necessarily in this neighborhood specifically, although they are still very slow to respond), and in just about any impoverished neighborhoods you can think of. It's worse in the ghettos. There, if the police DO show up, abuse is more likely to happen than justice.
Of course, you're talking to someone with friends who were brutalized by the local police force, with a husband discriminated against by the police force (And roughed up for simply existing, but not brutalized), and me, who was raped by a cop at the age of 13, when I tried to report...being raped.
Yeah, I have a problem with the police. Not once has a cop done anything to actually help protect me.
-
-
Anarchy is government by and for the uninformed-
Well that was an informed comment.
*rolls eyes*
-
-
I reckon a "special" version of anarchy has eliminating poverty as a goal.
Saying crime is caused by poverty - is ridiculous and cannot be shown by any cause - effect data.
I have worked in several post conflict nations. Immediately after the conflict is a true state of anarchy. Tribe or small local group rule flouting their own version of right and wrong. Anyone who disagrees is an infidel, evil, satanic, whatever. The only people that really flourish in anarchy are would be criminals and the most ruthless of people. I say would be criminals, because they are not breaking their laws - but they are basically gouging stealing, or taking protection money from the innocents.
Crime is caused by criminals, greed, and selfishness. There are more well-to-do notorious criminals than poor criminals, unless they became poor because they are criminals and now cannot get a job. Most poor people I have delt with are honest in nature. Most of the criminals I have arrested had plenty - or they squandered it on their lifestyle - but is was not because of lacking.
Criminal gangs are not poor people - they may come from poor neighborhoods, but their members have plenty. They just prey upon the poor because they are easy targets.
Home invasion is about control, about dominating someone else and greed. It is not an act of desperation.
I have lived in and seen anarchy - and only the ruthless flourish. I am proud to be someone who has brought rule-of-law to environments that have stabilized and are on their way to flourishing.
As far as laws that people cannot protect their life and property - that is crap from most state laws I have read. It is frivolous law-suits, lawyers, and the like (once again greed the motivating factor) that cause people to fear self protection.
Ok, I said my peace - I don't get to these discussions as much as I would like, but I will check back.-
Well, actually, you are dead wrong on several points.
After a conflict there is not Anarchy. There is Anomie - since there are still powers and governmental controls, but conflict and the fact that it is chaotic is not Anarchism.
There is no "special small group of Anarchists" that want to eliminate poverty - other than Anarcho-capitalists, all Anarchists fight for equality and to end poverty.
And yes, poverty is a HUGE factor in high crime rates. There may be a few "notorious" criminals who were rich, but the prisons aren't filled with rich famous criminals, now are they.
There are hundreds of studies linking poverty and crime.
Jesus people.
Here:
media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2004/02/13/Campus/High...
www.pubdef.ocgov.com/poverty.htm
www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/aboutus/media/WashTimesPovertyAndCrimePrevDec2...
64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:RubtBzoZG2UJ:www88.homepage.villanova.edu/lan...
Methods. Using cross-sectional Census tract data
for New York City (N 5 2,042), the present analysis employs robust regression
techniques to estimate the relationship between community resource deprivation
and homicide for a subsample of 227 neighborhoods with poverty rates 40 percent
and greater. Results. The main finding is that even at extreme levels of neighbor-
hood poverty, variation in disadvantage is positively associated with variation in
homicide rates. Moreover, the disadvantage-homicide relationship appears espe-
cially strong in extremely poor areas (and in predominately African-American
neighborhoods). Conclusion. Consistent with W. J. Wilson’s perspective on inner-
city disadvantage, the results imply that reducing the concentration of poverty will
reduce overall homicide rates.
Criminal gangs are not poor people - they may come from poor neighborhoods, but their members have plenty. They just prey upon the poor because they are easy targets.
They are only wealthy AFTER they started the gang. The cause of teh gang? Poverty and violence in impoverished neighborhoods.
Home invasion is about control, about dominating someone else and greed. It is not an act of desperation.
Home invasion doesn't have to happen when you are at home. Criminals tend to steal your stuff, and leave - save for the crazy ones.
I have lived in and seen anarchy -
No, actually, you haven't
When will people get past the notion that Anarchy=chaos and that it means there are no rules, and it'll just be a gang bang free for all for criminals?
I type, I write, I answer questions, I recomend books and other writings, all abtu teh subject and yet pepel can't get past that
ONE
FREAKING
FALLACY
ARARGGGHHHHHHH -
So the reward you get for starting a gang is your neighbourhood gets handouts?
That's immoral on so many levels.
Someone who commits homicide is not committing a crime out of the frustrations of being poor. That person has ulterior motives. Our biggest crime problem here is car hijacks. Someone who hijacks a car is not struggling to survive. Such a person has a network of thugs where he can take the car, meaning white collar crime is the big bad guy. You are not going to solve this problem by giving handouts to the poor. -
Anok -
I apologize for introducing real-life examples of anarchy. Where there is no government and what fills the void. I did not mean to say the idea of anarchy is bad. Just the practice.
Anomie explains nothing about institutions or govenrment. It is about moral expectations. It would be better suited to say the US is in such a situation.
Hundreds of studies... As for your sources:
The example from the lantern shows that poverty areas are high crime areas - it never shows a causal link. (did you read the title only? or the article?)
The pubdef example is merely a report that says our criminal justtice system is broken and about a large amount of certain ethnicities are in jail and since those ethicities have high poverty rates it has to mean poverty creates criminals - ( I believe the mere mentioning of a line in a report making a claim is not any kind of impirical evidence)
In the report about extremely poor neighborhoods and homicide it even admits :"These recent studies share the view that the relationship between poverty and violent crime is different for extreme-poverty neighborhoods and thus nonlinear;" pretty much says there is no causal link.
I already stated that criminals prey upon the poor - that is all any of these studie point out.
Thank you for claiming I am not engaging in real debate - when I speak of real-life experiences.
I am speaking of anarchy as understood by most folks :"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
I have seen anarchy in action - you wanting to claim real-life anarchy really isn't anarchy, go ahead - but go ahead and make light of the real world, and believe theory instead of practice.
I still say rule-of-law is far superior in reality. -
Oh yeah - and home invasion means the house is occupide - otherwise it is a plain burglary.
-
FP, I never said anything about handouts. Please stick to the topic at hand.
Barry - your real life examples are not Anarchy. They are chaos, pure and simple.
The fact that you keep calling it Anarchy is where I get frustrated. Anarchy is apolitical and philosophical ideal - and social structure. Chaos has no part in it.
Just because you see Anarchy lacks a centralized government you automatically think chaos after a revolution. This is false.
False, false false.
False.
There is more to Anarchism than a simple lack of laws or centralized government. Anomie means chaos. Anarchism means no centralized government, complete with miles of writing about the differences between legitimate leadership, actions and "control" and illegitimate authority, etc.
And you believe what you want to believe about poverty and violent crimes - You're wrong.
Wealthy people are not roving around in gangs, they are not hooked on crack, they are not prostituting their bodies, they are not selling drugs, they are not running, the labs, they are not stealing food and baby formula from the local grocery store.
Poor people are.
Maybe you are just more comfortable calling them lazy, greedy, or unjustifiably entitled rather than address the real issue - that they face violence every day, have no access to proper education, decent paying jobs, or a way out of the ghetto.
Maybe you really do think that kids say to themselves "I'd want to grow up and go to prison!" instead of college.
Yeah, that makes sense.
-
-
it worked in somalia, try the book economy without state, by peter little 2003 where somalia when the government went the economy actually got bettar.
the url for google books books.google.com/books?id=2TYguY_l8TEC&dq=economy+without+state-
That's almost Anarchy.
-
Africa as a whole would fare better economically if their governments went, purely because our governments tend to be a bit authoritarian.
-
-
At the risk of getting my ass kicked by Anok, I might be more open to the idea of anarchy were it not for the many people I've met who considered themselves anarchists. They might be separated into the tin man camp and the scarecrow camp (excluding paranoid nutjobs and angry kids who are actually nihilists who hate everything except punk rock lyrics):
1) right wing anarchists, who have no hearts--basically, they understand that if central government disappears, brutal feudalism will result, which is fine because, in their fantasies, they're the ones behind the castle walls with the private armies protecting their wealth from the starving hordes.
and
2) left wing hippie anarchists who have no brains--basically, they think if government disappears everyone will live in peace and harmony in a society based on organic gardening. They also tend to be in favor of everything being free and nobody having to work.
I've also met some smarter left wing anarchists, who I tend to agree with in terms of their critique of our and other governments, but get rather dubious when they bring up the French communards and the 1930's Spanish anarchists as proof that anarchism can work, without, apparently, seeing anything significant in the fact that both groups were slaughtered quite quickly.-
Well, OK - finally some good debate
Yes, there are angry kids who hate everything but punk rock lyrics - they are like smarmy newbies who don't know anything, and often get their butts whupped
The "right wing Anarchists" as you call it, or, as we call them, Anarcho-capitalists who favor the abolishment of government, but to keep capitalism, totally unregulated. I agree with your assessment, in fact I wrote Long, Nasty post about it all Capitalism and Government go hand in hand with most regular Anarchists, as unregulated capitalism is simply an Economic State, instead of a Government based State. Either way, it aint gonna work.
Your last group is off, though. I have met very, very few Anarchists in the "left" grouping that are, or could be considered "hippies". Nor do they believe that the simple disappearance of government would solve all problems.
One, most Anarchists in this group are not pacifists in any way, shape or form. So the Hippie thing is kind of out, plus they do not think that no one should work, but rather, that *everyone* should work collaboratively, and thus we would reduce our overall workload. There is a hint of stoicism to the Anarchist philosophy, as we often disregard or speak out against lavish excesses as a hindrance to a progressive and cohesive society. Obviously, one way to abolish inequaity is to shake off the notion that what we have determines our worth.
Instead, the focus is on what we can contribute to society. For example, skilled trade work, knowledge of particular sciences, ability to produce food - rearing children, and so on. Tangible needs addressed with skill and generosity are more so the goal than laying about the house smoking pot.
My husband and I have seen this in our own life - we have slid over to a barter system that enables us to get things w want, for reasonable "prices" or fair trades. If we can't get what we want, we wait. It's no big deal. (Notice i said want, not need). We have also set up some self sufficient means of living. This is another character trait of the Anarchist.
Self sufficiency, responsibility, and personal accountability are key traits that need to be present in each individual, or else Anarchism would not work. You can't have a slacker slacking off. You have to have initiative, because no one else is going to do it for you.
The trade off, is that you not only provide for yourself but those in your area, or collective, are doing the same thing, and thus become reliable, and trustworthy. You know if you lend them some time and effort, they will come through for you, should you need it. If you;re making a trade, it will be fair.
By doing this, my husband and I have actually freed up a great deal of time - we have found or broken through the 40 hour work week myth. Its; interesting that when you are "working" for something other than a profit in a currency system that determines your worth instead of your worth determining it - you don't actually have to work as much.
But you do still work.
Anarchists will always be "slaughtered quickly" unless they can change the hearts and minds of their opponents because they are always the enemy of the State.
They are the enemy of capitalists, and the wealthy.
They are the enemies of racists, bigots, classists, and elitists.
It isn't a matter of whether or not the ideology works, but rather if they can get the numbers to support it. -
Anok,what I don't understand is how you think that capitalism is going to fall away if there are no laws. I think this goes back to the same issue as the question of crime: a lot of people are greedy, and those who have the vast majority of the resources in their control aren't going to be lining up to give them away. That being the case, it's hard to understand how doing away with government won't have the opposite effect and allow the mega-corporations (which, in my view, have a far more negative impact on society than even the worst governmental entity) to run wild.
-
Capitalism and Government go hand in hand with most regular Anarchists, as unregulated capitalism is simply an Economic State, instead of a Government based State. Either way, it aint gonna work.
That is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, capitalism teaches that a monopoly is undesirable. The government is seen as a monopoly with a mandate from the masses. As such, a government is as un-capatalist as they come and as socialist as they come.
So the Hippie thing is kind of out, plus they do not think that no one should work, but rather, that *everyone* should work collaboratively, and thus we would reduce our overall workload.
I work for myself and I am responsible for my own work. I refuse to work for someone else. I have the right to keep the fruit of my labours and to use it as I see fit. If I become wealthy this way, it is not because of exploitation, but because of my own hard work. If others want to take my wealth away and give it to the less wealthy, I am being robbed.
My husband and I have seen this in our own life - we have slid over to a barter system that enables us to get things w want, for reasonable "prices" or fair trades.
Fair trades based on what? How do you compare heterogeneous goods in a barter system? If you are doing voluntary trade, then you are practicing capitalism minus the money.
It isn't a matter of whether or not the ideology works, but rather if they can get the numbers to support it.
That's not accurate. It is a matter of showing whether the ideology works first. It doesn't work. Nothing I have read or seen concerning anarchy sounds like an ideal to me. I refuse to support a system that caters for the weak at the expense of the strong, because if and when you do need the strong, the weak will not do.
Any random doctor could not have done what a great doctor like Pasteur did. Any random physicist could not do what a great scientist like Einstein did. Fact is, the weak need the strong more than the strong need the weak, and we need a system that encourages the strong to achieve according to their abilities, otherwise we will get rid of the poor, but not in the humanitarian way. The poor would simply starve without the wealthy. -
Have you guys even looked at what Somalia has been and still is like? Thugs still rule the streets and pirates rulke the seas. I guess y'all like such nonsense.
-
Yes, Somalia was a 'scientific socialist' experiment. Surprise! It didn't work. Surprise! They switched to a free market economy and things got better. Strange how that's a pattern everywhere.
-
Tiffany, I didn't say capitalism would fall away. I said government and capitalism go hand in hand.
If we are going to keep a capitalistic economy, we must keep a government to regulate it.
If we are to abolish government, we must abolish capitalism, too.
FP, you're wrong, plain and simple. If you want economic slavery - you go right on ahead and have it. History has proven that capitalism does not regulate itself - it does set up monopolies, and it uses slave labor to make money.
Hello, have you not looked at the history of unregulated business practices?
You believe what you want. -
Anok, I don't disagree with that at all. What I'm unclear on is how, if we take away the only weapon (however weak) that we currently have against capitalism, we can expect to "get rid of it". The corporations have all the marbles at the moment--we can't overthrow them by force because they have more and bigger guns. Most of us can't simply stop doing business with them because most of us aren't in a position to live without what they provide. In some cases, that could be overcome, but not all, and certainly not in any kind of short-term. Please understand that I'm not arguing with your theory...but my first question is always "But how are you going to...?" I don't see any real answers to that question forthcoming with regard to the fact that the entities that are arguably the greatest forces of greed and destruction in our society currently have about 75% of the power, and without government would have about 95%.
-
If we are going to keep a capitalistic economy, we must keep a government to regulate it.
If we are to abolish government, we must abolish capitalism, too.
Um, no. Government is not a capitalist body. Quite the opposite.
History has proven that capitalism does not regulate itself - it does set up monopolies, and it uses slave labor to make money.
You're wrong, plain and simple. Capitalism does regulate itself. It is the government that prevents it from doing so. Look at who saved Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae...
Hello, have you not looked at the history of unregulated business practices?
There have been very few, if any, unregulated business practices. In societies with less regulated business, the general level of poverty is decreasing while the general level of wealth is increasing (Ireland, Asian Tigers, etc). This happens without exception. Where there is much interference in the economy, the opposite rings true (Most of South America, Sweden, Findland, USSR, etc). This also happens without exception.
I believe the numbers. -
Tiffany. the transformation would be slow, not abrupt - so the economic change would also be slow.
Of course there is always force against corporations....but... erm
FP, the US had little if any regulations prior to the Great depression.
What we saw was:
Slavery
Child labor
Huge monopolies
Mass poverty
no wage, or labor standards
unsafe work conditions
massive pollution
and abusive corporate ethics.
Then of course, the economy collapsed.
After a period of heavy handed regulation, deregulation came into play, and other than labor standards and some regulation we are again seeing:
Pseudo monopolies, or as close as they can get within the parameters of the law,
A widen income gap,
Unethical lending and business practices,
Outright illegal trading practices,
and our economy is collapsing.
And by the way - the mixed economies such as Sweden, Denmark, Europe etc..
Are the WEALTHIEST countries in the world with care for all of their citizens, a smaller much smaller gap between the wealthiest and poorest citizen, and a stronger economy with little to no threat of collapse.
They are also ranked the happiest places on Earth to live.
You need to go back and look at your numbers again. Because your assessment is actually dead wrong. -
Then of course, the economy collapsed.
Actually, prior to the great depression, America was doing very, very well. There are economists who believe that the economy collapses precisely because of the way the Federal Reserve came into being, in other words because of government interference with a free market.
mises.org/story/2845
According to Austrian economists, the separation of the economy and the state is just as inevitable as the separation of the church and the state. I agree with them. The current economic crisis in America is the direct result of bad credit. The bad credit is a result of the government granting credit to those who weren't really credit worthy. This caused markets to collapse because the market values of particularly property dropped and people who weren't credit worthy could not pay their dues. Now the US government has to bail out the companies who were involved in creating this bad debt, which only postpones the inevitable.
It's going to be a long, strange trip.
-
-
I mentioned anarchism at Philosophy Club and someone asked, "Without laws, what's to stop you from raping someone?" What about the angry mob of anarchists that will show up at your door if you do?
No laws doesn't mean no morals.
I'm slightly incoherent, so it's now bedtime. Night.-
We have a similar system here. It's not official, but it happens. Mob justice/kangaroo courts decide they are going to put someone to death, and they do. Nobody can stop them. This is perfect provided that the person they accuse of a crime is actually guilty, but more often than not, that person isn't guilty of anything except being a little eccentric.
It is for this reason that I don't think anarchy is a realistic goal. The rule of law might not be applied without fear or favour, but it is still better than not having any rule at all. Like Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others we tried. -
I think that if these judgments were made by forensic scientists and ethics philosophers, it could work.
-
Most ethics philosophers are left. Bad idea.
Besides, you would still need a system whereby I could appeal or protest the work of a specific forensic scientist. This implies the rule of law, which implies a system of government. -
What stops people from raping people now?
Nothing, that's what.
What is the legal system?
An economic based system of revenge - if you can afford it. -
What stops people from raping people now?
Nothing, that's what.
Legal guns, that's what. Really, they do work.
What is the legal system?
An economic based system of revenge - if you can afford it.
Well, here everyone can afford legal aid. It's a constitutional right.
-
-
As the Jews philosophically lament..there's time for planting..time for sawing..time for feast..time for anarchist TO ERR AS BEEN BEING HUMAN EXPRESSION..and most of all time to "PARLIAMENT YOUR RIGHT"
In Fairness to Anarchist...
I dont want to be sided to a certain party of a political notion of anarchist communism including DEMOCRASY... NOR A REPUBLIK ESPECIALY DICTATORS WHO DOESNT RESPECT ROYAL SOVEREIGNTY IN GRAND FALCIFICATION STANDING PRESIDENT A CON TEMPORARY STATE SOVEREIGN FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS. To me honestly it sound crazy..the graviest worst thing happened to have a relationship with this people in politicking nor in anarchist had one common attitude of temporary make believed.
The reality is not all the time we are to do anarchism nor a revolutionary republik nor a united in states republik. Not all the time we are to shout One for All and all for One. The reality is we are forever unique from each other and we have our very right to live as social human in this world and Most of all you had your own right to PARLIAMENT to voice out and be heard as minority in importance.-
In English, it's spelled "Republic." Also, there's no space in "contemporary." I'm not sure what "graviest" is supposed to mean.
-
-
Explain in some detail the differences among the master-morality and the slave-morality. Are these concepts useful in the analysis of interpersonal dynamics?
The two primary types of morality are master morality and slave morality; in higher civilizations and in people, they are mixed.
Master morality is a "yea-saying" attitude where "good" and "bad" are equivalent to "noble" and "despicable" respectively. The master creates value.
Slave morality is a "nay-saying" attitude or herd morality which holds to the standard of that which is useful or beneficial to the weak or powerless. The virtues are sympathy, kindness, and humility. Strong and independent individuals are evil.
The history of morals is the conflict of these two moral outlooks. The higher type creates his own values out of strength; the meek and powerless begin with resentment. Coexistence is impossible because the herd seeks to impose its values universally.
philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/notes-nietzsche.html
Go ahead with the resentment, anarchists. I'd rather spend my days as a value-adding master than an iconoclast or one of Ghengis Khan's Mongols.-
Whatever FP.
I'd rather live my life knowing I know how to make my own decisions, and knowing that my worth to a community is equal to others not based on my gender, race, religion or income - but based on my contribution to said community.
I am quite happy knowing that I do know the difference between right and wrong without artificial laws to tell me so, and that I am capable of sharing this knowledge with others.
I am also happy knowing I don't need to rely on a slow, corrupt and antiquated justice system to be able to take are of myself and my loved ones.
Nor am I trapped by the economic wants and desires and delusions of caste systems.
But if you like being there, you go right ahead and stay there. -
It's not about what is right or wrong for you personally. You are prescribing a radical reinvention of civilisation as we know it - for every body. I'm not naive enough to think I know what is best for everyone.
-
Actually I haven't tried or advocated for the abrupt reinvention of anything.
Then again, isn't what we have now exactly that, anyway? It's OK to have a government tell them what's best for them, but being told they can decide for themselves is some how more oppressive?
Okay. -
Actually I haven't tried or advocated for the abrupt reinvention of anything.
Well, then you aren't an anarchist.
"Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
- "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
- "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."Absolute liberty? That means everyone can deal drugs, sell crack, club together in gangs if they so desire. A bunch of beret toting college grads with homemade bomb recipes off the Internet is not going to prevent that from happening.
- Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere. Likewise, this implies radical change.
- Without government or law. One of the founding principles of the entire Western culture is the rule of law. If you want to do away with laws, you want radical change of society. For everyone. This is not about individual liberty, this is about a radical social revolution.
Anarchy is like saying you want to speed on the highway, therefore all the traffic laws must be abolished.
Then again, isn't what we have now exactly that, anyway? It's OK to have a government tell them what's best for them, but being told they can decide for themselves is some how more oppressive?
Certainly I agree with that. I do not agree that anarchy is a desirable way to deal with the problem. The law works both ways: to protect individuals from each other and from the government. An ideal system to me is one which ensures the maximum amount of reasonable individual liberty. Anarchy is not such a system, because while I do agree that governments tend to be useless, I do not agree that the entire system is obsolete.
-
-
Anok - I never spoke about a chaotic situation. I am not an idiot, please stop speaking to me as such. I know the difference between anrchy and chaos. I have seen and been in both. I never mentioned anything remotely about chaos - you did - in debate that is called a smoke screen -
Please do not diss my experience just because it conflicts with your theory.
Also please do not imply I have said anything negative about the poor - that is low and un-called for. The only people I referred to as greedy were criminals.
I never said there was no relation to poverty and crime - I said poverty does not cause it. I am not wrong about that, and your documentation failed to disprove what I said. If you really believe that poverty causes crime, then you do not believe that poor people can make their own decisons or have their own worth to a community.-
First, I am cranky today. I apologize for that.
The experiences you described are what happens after a revolution, war, or violent outbreak. This is chaos, not Anarchy. You may not call it chaos, but that is what it is. Just because a government is temporarily offline, and people who are accustomed to governments, laws, and authority are thrown into a situation with which they are unfamiliar, uncomfortable with, or unable to comprehend it doesn't mean what you have is Anarchy.
You have a chaotic situation, not an Anarchist system. As I said way, way above I don't think Anarchism as a result of revolution is the best way for that very reason.
You can't take people who are clearly not ready, not equipped and unfamiliar with the concept and throw them into it without them failing miserably, and it ending up in utter chaos. Anarchism - just like any other lifestyle, system, belief or social construct has it's own boundaries, guidelines, and requirements for it to be successful.
It just doesn't require a centralized government to regulate itself.
As for the poverty ideal. I hear everyone say that poverty doesn't cause crime, greed causes crime. Yet, the highest crime rates happen in the poorest neighborhoods - most often by the people who live there.
The highest incarceration rates are made up of the poorest people, and the most impoverished countries and areas have the highest crime rates.
When people have no viable legal way of attaining the things they need such as food, reasonable shelter, health care, education, jobs that pay enough money to survive on and safety - they turn to illegal means of of business.
They create gangs, they rob, they steal - don't think I haven't been there. When the choice is to starve your child or lose a safe place to sleep or steal something - guess what is going to happen.
The crimes escalate, violence erupts, and it goes into a downward spiral. Because the moment they stop committing crimes, they go back to not being able to afford the things they need, and living in areas where violence persists, and police help is little, to none, if not abusive and corrupt.
By shrugging off crime as simple greed, or entitlement you are inadvertently assigning these labels to the poor, who commit the crimes.
Just look at history. Just look at our own prison records, and crime statistics. What percentage of wealthy people are holding up gas stations at gun point? And what percentage of people at or below the poverty level commit those types of crimes?
-
-
So I started this discussion on Friday, but hours later I had to go to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Quite an unexpected turn of events.
I was operated on Saturday morning, and released earlier today. I see that this thread caught fire in my absence.
Anok, going back to your initial response to me...
"One of the leading causes of crime is poverty - so to eradicate it, you have substantially lowered the risk of needing the type of laws and investigations you speak about, because the types o crimes that are most often committed wouldn't be so prevalent.
Home invasion, robbery, drug use - all of these are indicators of desperation.
Of course, you still have some wackos out there, and there is no reason that groups can't come together - continue to use technology and logic and find a way to deal with someone like - you know - Gacey.
No laws simply means that - it doesn't mean no rules. There's that tricky aspect of legitimacy at play."
I acknowledge that there is a causal link between poverty and crime (while also recognizing that it is certainly not the only cause), but I still find it difficult to even believe that anarchy would eliminate poverty. Poverty is a relative term. In any society, under any type of government of lack thereof, isn't it inevitable that some people are going to have more, or be better off than others? And as long as that is true, you will have not easily settled disputes, and you will have criminal activity.
I'm not clear on how an anarchic society would enforce equality here. I think it is putting too much faith in humanity to think that everyone will be properly educated and brought up well to contribute to the community, and to respect a loose collection of house rules and merit-based leadership. It is just expecting a whole lot for everyone to behave that rationally and selflessly. And I do extend that to resolving disputes. I do envision conflict still being a natural component of human existence even with anarchy... because though you may reach wide consensus on things like the immorality of murder or theft... there is plenty that is less black-and-white than that.
Before writing anything else, I'm going to read through more of the thread...-
Glad that you're home and apparently on the mend.
-
Thanks. Yeah, I feel much better now.
-
Oh I'm glad you are home! Hope you heal quickly!
but I still find it difficult to even believe that anarchy would eliminate poverty. Poverty is a relative term. In any society, under any type of government of lack thereof, isn't it inevitable that some people are going to have more, or be better off than others?
Equality isn't about "haves" it's about a person's worth to society. In our current society, those who have not are considered a burden on society (No matter how much they contribute to it) and are looked down upon, and yes, generally paid less than those that have.
Poverty is a social construct by way of placing all societal worth on material possessions. Remove that ideology, and you can eradicate poverty. Of course, other things would have to change as well - such as the economy constructs, but generally speaking, yes i believe that Anarchists - hell everyone - can help end poverty. They just need to stop focusing on material things as a definition of self worth.
I'm not clear on how an anarchic society would enforce equality here.
Actually, it would be self regulating. Unlike a capitalist society where the rich get to dictate working conditions, worth, and essentially the fact that you MUST work to survive - the Anarchist ideology makes each contribution as valuable as the next.
Meaning, if the guy who is really good at fixing your sewer pipes is being looked down upon, he can take his tools and go elsewhere, leaving the community with no one to fulfill that important role. Now, that's a bit dramatic, but the importance of each role is pretty clear when you start relying on others, and they rely on you.
Furthermore, if you get someone who tries to abuse it, or slack off - the collective or group can just as easily oust them from the group. That ousting puts him or her at risk, if you want to look at it tribally.
I think it is putting too much faith in humanity to think that everyone will be properly educated and brought up well to contribute to the community, and to respect a loose collection of house rules and merit-based leadership. It is just expecting a whole lot for everyone to behave that rationally and selflessly.
Why? When have we ever tried teaching people to behave that way? Don't get me wrong, I think it would take decades, maybe even centuries of breeding out the need to keep up with the Jonses. But genetically speaking - our bodies and minds are not encoded with the type of behavior we see today.
That is learned. And if it is learned, it can be unlearned.
I do envision conflict still being a natural component of human existence even with anarchy... because though you may reach wide consensus on things like the immorality of murder or theft... there is plenty that is less black-and-white than that.
Oh sure. Even when you love someone dearly you can have a falling out. However, let's look at what kind of disputes happen most often...
Disputes over money, or monetary compensation for some loss.
Disputes over love and relationships.
Criminal disputes over theft or other crimes.
Disputes over property.
Without poverty, with equality, and with the sense of collaboration, how many of those types of disputes do you think would even exist, and, how many would escalate into something that would require mediation?
How do we settle every day disputes where the law has no ruling, and no hold on that area?
We work it out. -
Anok, many of your comments address the need to fundamentally change human nature e.g. "They just need to stop focusing on material things as a definition of self worth." The world would probably be a better place if this were true, but I don't see it happening. You can educate your own children as you please, but in either a capitalist democracy or anarchic society, you cannot dictate the principles which others are to value. Before you achieve anarchy, you need to not only convince at least most people that not being materialistic, selflessly contributing to the community, etc. are noble pursuits, but instill it in them so strongly that their behavior truly reflects these values.
"But genetically speaking - our bodies and minds are not encoded with the type of behavior we see today."
What evidence is there for this claim? So you think most "bad" people act badly in spite of a genetic proclivity to behave otherwise? I could just as easily claim that "good" people act morally because of their upbringing in spite of an instinctive urge to do harm. Are you merely speculating or referring to any scientific evidence?
I think our fundamental disagreement is about whether, taking upbringing and environmental circumstances out of the equation, we know humanity is commonly inclined to a certain set of behaviors to a sufficient degree, and whether these behaviors are generally "good" or can be relied upon to sustain a stable lawless society.
Look at it this way: What made a system like capitalism come into existence and flourish in the first place? Obviously greed and self-interest must have already been significant elements of human nature. The fact that capitalism may further encourage these values does not change this. It's like saying pornography causes people to feel sexual attraction. No... sexual attraction caused the rise of pornography. Pornography may feed the impulse, but eliminating will not make porn consumers' sex drives disappear.
And again, I'm not opposed to your emphasis on better education in families. But there is now "law" saying this can't be accomplished just as well in a democratic republic as an anarchic society.
-
-
Can it work?
Hmm, depends on what you refer to as working. Would it be a functional and strong society if you applied it to a country the size of America.. nope.
But as a viable replacement for a democracy.
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
"Snowballs chance in hell" and "When pigs fly" to be more exact. -
I don't particularly think anarchy is a great idea. All of our political systems are based on assumptions about human nature. Capitalism-- we are greedy, communism-- we want to cooperate, anarchism-- people are good and basically want to help each other. The underlying assumption of anarchism is a false assumption.
None of our current political systems really take into account how people really act. Capitalism is closer than the rest, but it is massively flawed. Maybe, someone will create a system based on modern understanding of how humans act that will work. But, right now we are stuck with what we have got.-
All of them that assume one basic tenet for all human behaviour are flawed. I agree that capitalism is closer than the rest, purely because it allows the breathing space for those who are greedy and it generates enough wealth to support those who are not high achievers.
-
-
It seems that, after reading all of the responses (Ok, "Most" of them), that the answer is "Yes, anarchy could work".
However, it would be just as flawed and corrupt as the current system, so why bother?
The bottom line is that it comes down to people and their behaviors. Regardless of the system, a few bad eggs can spoil it for all of us. -
Anarchism, like utopianism, only lasts for a short amount of time if put into effect. While the initial intention of the movement may be rationally qualified, it is in human nature to form herds and establish a "pecking order" or societal heiarchy in order to survive. -
No. Chaos only breeds chaos. A stable society must have a consistent set of orderly and uniform laws to bring harmony to any group of divergent people. -
I don't think it works as a political philosophy. However as an artistic or personal philosophy understanding it can be liberating. Understanding how to be an outlaw and push the boundaries can lead to some very deep insights. This is especially true in repressive societies.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
