Ask Your Question today
"See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another and so scuffle into the mud and the abyss." (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
To what extent and scale is a stateless, self-governed people feasible? Are alternative forms of government becoming justifiable in the face of corruption and political fanaticism? Discussion encouraged.
| Anarchy is feasible | 8 | |
| Anarchy is ideal, but unfeasible | 7 | |
| Anarchy is neither ideal nor feasible | 9 | |
| Salami. | 13 |
All people are a self-governed people. You can't take away what you didn't give and no one can take away society's power to choose their own fate. No government ever existed that was forced upon the people; they always consented directly or indirectly.
A stateless entity? Does that mean no laws? Or just laws determined by the majority? Does the majority determine a truth? If that's so then we had no right to interfere in World War II, since the majority's opinion was against the Jewish race.
It's a lengthy discussion but I'll sum it up this way. Anarchy is a system of beliefs that hinges upon man's virtue to succeed whereas most thrive off the vice of man.
In order for Anarchy to work man would have to be a creature not driven by self-interest and forever seeking it's own life at the expense of everything else.
But that's the way of it whenever crisis hits. (some) people turn to outlandish solutions. Why not use what works? Look at Rome. A civilization that lasted for 1000 years and instead of copying the basic premise of their book we take what little snippets we like and expect our system to work.
I agree with almost everything you're saying, but I'd like to clear some things up.
Consent implies neither justice nor self-government, so I'm not sure what that point was. That I may consent to fascism does not make it absolutely right or free. Your issue of majority is also troubling because the alternative is just as frightening - our involvement in WWII was only good in hindsight. Were the government to decide on something awful (like, say, persecuting Jews), then we'd all be clamoring for majority rule. If majority doesn't determine truth/morality, then what does?
As for the definition of anarchism, it simply detests hierarchy, and wants spontaneous voluntary organization with no central command, the idea being that people will do whatever work they wish to do (the ultimate ideal!). Business likely dictates order - if there were to arise a jury, its capacity for monopolization would be limited on a genuinely free market.
But whatever, I voted salami.
What is justice? The point with consent is that there is no such thing as oppression in it's truest sense.
"issue of majority is frightening"
Both majority rule and government deciding against majority rule can be frightening. Both have been used for great good and great destruction. Neither have any inherent value; like a medicine they can heal a doctor or a thief.
What determines a truth? Truth is something that can be confirmed from multiple viewpoints of reality. Or multiple perceptions of reality. If you look at a house from only the front you could be fooled. Maybe the house has no depth or width. It's best to look at it from all angles to make sure you weren't deceived into believing something that doesn't fit the confines of reality. But ultimately perception of reality has always trumped it's actual value.
"To understand the Great Mystery, one must study all it's aspects".
If that's the definition of Anarchy then it's totally impractical. It's inevitable hierarchy arises; if you put 10 people in a room, 1 will always lead the 9 and bring order out of the chaos of differing opinions and perceptions.
Ugh!! Long post. It burns. It buuurrns :(
TL;DR- No Anarchy cannot work.
It's a poison that destroys more effectively than any man made weapon.
The corrupt government structures we have today all initially formed from anarchy.
I'd like to see a revolution.
That's interesting. Did they? At what point did we live in anarchy?
Even tribes have alphas.
That is not what Anarchy is. Anarchy is not government. Which might last for a short time but eventually things will turn to the normal state.
Government is a set system of rules which a society follows. We eventually pick leaders, and make rules for who to follow, and figure out what behaviors are acceptable based on the group, than pick who does what jobs and than start trading goods for services.
So even if we are stuck in anarchy things will eventually go back to the way they are. However without a system we are left to chaos and that is never a good thing.
You might believe the government is corrupt but if it prevents rape, murder and molestation I fear more what would happen without its presence.