Question about Anarchy

Absolutely not. Statistics show that when citizens are allowed to carry guns freely, criminals are commit less acts of violence.

 

Are you saying that our society would be safer WITHOUT laws?

I remember reading something completely opposite from my school history books...

 

I didn't say that. I do however, think that we would be "safer" if we weren't ruled by a totalitarian government.

BTW, what is your obsession with "safety"?

"I hate to remind you, but you're going to die." Jim Morrison



On "school history books":

"The classroom is the last room to get the truth." ZDR


"Don't believe everything you read." Conventional Wisdom

 

I wouldn't call it an obsession.

I've always considered safety to be a semi-basic human need.

Something that would be vulnerable in anarchy.

Besides, I wouldn't want my son to grow up fearing for his life everyday while cluthing a rifle.

 

And I'm not suggesting that. I admit that the population of this planet is too large to simply shift to communal anarchy. What I propose is that those of us who DO recognize that communal anarchy is the only really viable system for humans go ahead and live it ourselves. That we try to be as self-sustaining as possible. That we deal with conflicts ourselves, rejecting involvement in state systems of "law" or "law enforcement." That we live communally, sharing our resources. We cannot have this system on the state level - I readily admit that. All we can do is try to mimick the natural egalitarian state of humanity as much as we can in the midst of the complete insanity of the state.

Actually, US farmers alone produce thousands of tons of food each year that the US government pays farmers to allow to rot. The US THROWS OUT enough food each day to feed every single hungry person on the planet. We could shift back to communal farming, but it would mean that Americans would have to reduce their consumption - especially of meat. There are only 2 ways for that to occur - 1 is a shift in consciousness. The second is the elimination of corporate farms that receive massive government subsidies and tax breaks - the financial assistance factory farms receive make high-cost foods such as pork and beef APPEAR cheap, which encourages higher consumption. We can produce 1000 pounds of food for the same land and energy it takes to produce ONE pound of beef. Logically, if we reduce beef consumption, we can increase our vegetable consumption - which would be better for health, the environment, and the world.

It wouldn't "go" anywhere. We aren't talking about a lightning shift from the computer age to the stone age. We (or I am, anyway) are talking about a slow return to a social system that is more socially successful for the human animal. I'll point out here that the vast majority of hunter-gatherers report far higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction than the average individual living in a technological state society, so I personally would be willing to get rid of every single technological "advance" we've seen in the last 10,000 years if it meant a worldwide return to egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, because the trade-off hasn't been worth it. But again, that's not what I'm personally talking about - it simply isn't going to happen, and isn't currently possible. As another poster pointed out, eventually, if we don't do SOMETHING about our societies, we WILL see massive depopulation and a return to small band societies, because the current system is completely unsustainable in every way, and is producing technology that is endangering the existence of not only humans, but all large mammal life on earth.

Actually, as I pointed out, individuals living in hunter-gatherer groups tend to work an average of 3 hours a day. If you are talking about more realistic "intentional communities" based on egalitarian structures, individuals in those groups tend to work less than the average american. I will point out that in ANY society - including ours - the vast majority of people are not working on scientific advancements. Also, the type of knowledge that is valuable in an egalitarian society is different than in a state. You are correct - it is doubtful that egalitarian folks are going to sit around trying to figure out how to make your computer faster - but they will probably have knowledge of plants, animals, building, and production of all manner of goods that you cannot even imagine having.

I guess what I'm saying at this point is that there is absolutely no way of knowing what would happen to systems like the internet, phone, massive transportation systems, etc. if all of a sudden we shifted back to hunter-gatherer society. But this really isn't a realistic concern. I'm personally interested in what we can do realistically in the face of the very solid existence of the state and the fact that it is NOT going to disappear overnight - or probably in any of our lifetimes. What I propose is that we try to withdraw from it as much as we can. We need to create new models of society that are sustainable and that satisfy the human need for community, for personal liberty, for meaningful connection with nature, for healthy food, etc. I say that we avoid interaction with the state as much as humanly possible - knowing that we won't be able to completely eliminate its influence (or knowing that if we become "too free," we will become targets for state violence - for some, this risk is worth it).

If, in the end, we must relinquish technology in the name of freedom, joy, and true prosperity, I am perfectly willing to be a "pioneer" on that road. I think it is more than worth it to be rid of the state and its neverending misery.

 

We have been duped into believing that living under the control of the ruling elite has made us "safe." A minor look into the anthropology of pre-state societies exposes this for the lie it is.

Prior to the existence of the elite - and hence, elite violence, elite genocide, elite quest for wealth and power, elite oppression, elite systems of slavery, etc etc, etc - violence was something that one engaged in for self-protection. As I've stated already, hunter-gatherers will protect their territory. They will protect their traditional hunting grounds, protect themselves from wild animals, etc. As a GENERAL rule, however, actual incidents of violence are not common among egalitarian hunter-gatherers, and most interactions with "outsiders" are approached in ways meant to AVOID violence and conflict rather than cause it. There is no thought of going around attacking other peoples, raping their women, molesting their children, or stealing their resources - there is no cause for this type of violence in egalitarian societies. We only see this type of behavior when we see the emergence of social stratification and sedentary agriculture.

NOW, if we are talking about the "modern" day - I'd say that we are far safer living communally in communities of 50-100 well-known members than in anonymous cities (or suburbs, for that matter). Violence in intentional communities is rare, and when it occurs, members of the community are generally quick to intervene. There is far less chance of some crazed serial rapist maurading around an intentional community raping women than in your local college town. Strangers in small communities are easily identified, easily monitored, and can be readily ejected if they cause problems.

What is hilarious to me is people like Shane's dependence on the police, when the VAST MAJORITY of arrests are of NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS, not those individuals who are truly dangerous. I read an article once that said that approximately 75% of murders are never even solved. And rape? Police are clearly not a deterrent to rape - at least 25% of women report being sexually assaulted. And like murderers, most rapists are never caught. Those who are often serve less jail time than the average nonviolent drug offender.

I'll finally point out that the entire phenomenon of "crime" is a complete manifestation of the state itself. Societies that produce well-balanced, well-fed, happy, satisfied, integrated human beings don't tend to produce a lot of rapists or murderers. These societies, coincidentally, happen to be mostly egalitarian societies. So like everything else, in the areas of violence, crime, and safety, the egalitarian society wins out. The only REAL threat to an egalitarian society is the STATE and the dysfunctional people it creates.

 

"I hate to remind you, but you're going to die." Jim Morrison

So will your son.



I'd raise my young'uns to be cooperative and helpful to their neighbors and earn good standing with their community.

Amazing how loyal people can be if given the chance.


You descirbe a world of chaos and disorder because no one is telling you what to do.

Can you imagine how sick and twisted that seems to free thinkers?

 

Good point...

Certainly something for me to think about.

you have any resources on anarchist philosophy that you could share?

 

Whoa!


This thread is back from the dead!

Bacchus made some very good points.

 

This.
Right now people are simply too selfish, too stupid. Chaos WOULD arise. Even if there are a few nice people, the assholes would ruin it for everybody. its a nice idea, but won't work.

 

Agreed. These homeless little punks can preach it all they want, but the second they throw a brick through my window or burn something down you bet my law enforcement and government system will take them out of their little dream bubble.

 

they had leaders. NOT anarchy.