Discussion of Anarchism

[Superhobo]

I'm here to start up a serious discussion of Anarchism, for everyone, the Anarchists (like me and some others), to the fascists (like The Lumberjack and some others. All are welcome. Come in and chat about true freedom.

 

[JLBats]

I'm all for anarchy, but where are we to buy our pies if society were to crumble?

 

[Superhobo]

We take it upon ourselves to do these jobs. We provide for ourselves. If somebody has pie, they give it to you. If you have pie, you would give it to them. Self-sustainment.

 

[xcan28]

We take it upon ourselves to do these jobs. We provide for ourselves. If somebody has pie, they give it to you. If you have pie, you would give it to them. Self-sustainment.

??? Anarchy is lawlessness. I very much doubt anyone would be sharing pies. It'd be all about keeping yourself alive not baking

 

[JLBats]

We take it upon ourselves to do these jobs. We provide for ourselves. If somebody has pie, they give it to you. If you have pie, you would give it to them. Self-sustainment.

What about setting up a system of hippie communes?

 

[Superhobo]

??? Anarchy is lawlessness. I very much doubt anyone would be sharing pies. It'd be all about keeping yourself alive not baking

Anarchism is 'without leaders or hierarchies' not 'without order and pies.'

 

[xcan28]

Anarchism is 'without leaders or hierarchies' not 'without order and pies.'

OK..where are laws created from? The people who rule the goverment = leaders / hieracrchies...and they decide what pies the country can eat so it's all relative

If you want to live in that society, I'm sure Haiti would have no problem welcoming you...enjoy your lawless society

 

[JLBats]

Um, what about hippie communes?

 

[Superhobo]

There would be no laws to decide all that. If one wanted pie, one could make pie, for yourself or someone else. Why would you let the country leaders decide what pie you want?

 

[JLBats]

Um, but what if no one else WANTS to make me pie, I CAN'T make it myself

 

[Superhobo]

free trade, friend.

 

[JLBats]

Um, what if I can't find anyone to trade something for a pie?

 

[JLBats]

What if someone bigger and stronger tries to kill me?!

 

[Superhobo]

Then I would mourn your passing, find your house, and take your stuff for use in free trade.

But, those responsible for murder and etc., would still be held accountable for such.

 

[JLBats]

Then how is that anarchy?

 

[Superhobo]

Anarchism is without leaders. Not without order. Always remember that when discussing Anarchism. It would not just be complete chaos where you could get away with murder.

 

[JLBats]

Ok, so now you have cops. Now, who do the cops answer to? Leaders.

 

[Superhobo]

Never said cops.

 

[JLBats]

So how do you intend to keep the order?

 

[Superhobo]

People themselves know what order is, and can keep order without leaders. In the case of a murder or thereof, a community would take hold; not police. The community would be the place of prosecutor and, if the man had a good reason for murdering you (which I'd love to hear) he would be let go. But, if not, he would be punished. Murder is never a necessity, although I do want to legalize gentlemen's duels while there are still laws.

 

[Leto Atrides]

People themselves know what order is, and can keep order without leaders. In the case of a murder or thereof, a community would take hold; not police. The community would be the place of prosecutor and, if the man had a good reason for murdering you (which I'd love to hear) he would be let go. But, if not, he would be punished. Murder is never a necessity, although I do want to legalize gentlemen's duels while there are still laws.

Essentially then, is the community not forming a new authority figure? It's not formalized as a traditional government may be, but still, you're having a group of people defend the status quo.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in limited government, but IMO a state of having truly no government/authority could only exist if everyone were to
1. Act primitivistically and be wholly self-sufficient.
or
2. Act voluntarily in their group's best interests, every individual. As soon as you have someone not pulling their weight, you'll either fail as a group or need to enforce this; then you have a power structure enforcing it's beliefs on others and you're starting a government up again.

(BTW If I'm mistaken, and you're one of those people who just like their power structures fluid rather than formal, that's another story).

 

[Superhobo]

Good post. One of the first in this thread not involving pie. I'm more about choice two, loosely, only up to about 'every individual' do I support. Anarchism lets them go where they want. If you don't want to help; don't. Anarchism is all about being your own leader, and being free. If you want to be a hermit; be a hermit.

 

[Leto Atrides]

Good post. One of the first in this thread not involving pie. I'm more about choice two, loosely, only up to about 'every individual' do I support. Anarchism lets them go where they want. If you don't want to help; don't. Anarchism is all about being your own leader, and being free. If you want to be a hermit; be a hermit.

I see what you mean. Actually seems like a mix of all the stuff I was asking about (group rule, solitary life, some people loosely being in charge).

 

[Superhobo]

Just got your response. I was trying to install Adobe Reader and my computer glitched and shut down. Damn Adobe.

 

[Tangled Web]

Anarchy is stupid. The way things are is much better than Anarchy. If we had Anarchy some ****ing dictator will see it as an oppurtunity to take over.