It seems like an interesting idea but ive only ever heard it criticized. I want to hear it from an anarchist what this shit is all about.
Complete Chaos has been, and will always be the way of life. Now i'm by no means an "Anarchist", but i do look forward to seeing the world crumble in the next couple of years... people need a good wake-up call, time to go back to the old days where we rely on our basic instincts to survive.
Anarchy is a transition. Watch this short vid on political systems for knowledge: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ[/ame]
R U Kidin Me prsent an argument? How about< the price of gas last summer, the avg. joes 401K is now a 101-k The banks are gettin trilions of dollars , the people are gettin, well hungry ,pissed ,out of work ,out of time, shit is going to hit the fan this tear. wow. im meant to say year, maybe tear is better!!! good luck on the revelution though we aer all to laid back and complacent to get up and do anything about it . Some body tell me Im wrong . Please.
There is no legitimate argument. Anarchy is simply the end of society. It is what happens when everything fails.
Emma Goldman was a lefty anarchist who wrote some good stuff. If you Google around for her name you can find some archives of her essays (most of it's in the public domain). She gives the definition of anarchism like so: Getting anarchists to agree on anything beyond "government is bad" is, predictably, a bit like trying to herd cats, but most of them take the view that freedom is paramount to human existence and that any attempt to encroach on freedom beyond the absolute bare minimum (like, encroaching on someone's freedom to kill you would fall under "bare minimum") is wrong, and since government enforces itself with force that it's wrong and contrary to human nature. In short, it's freebase libertarianism.
There is no legitimate argument for anarchy. Hobbes addressed this claim in his book Leviathan. The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all. This is referring to the fact that man is primarily self-interested, and anything that stands in the way of his survival or perceived benefit will become his enemy, hence war. After developing his argument for the better part of 12 chapters, he comes to this conclusion: I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things. Because of self interest, society MUST exist on some level for humans to live in relative safety and security.
right but anarcy works. Shaka was the best anarchy leader. so it still means, it can be control. I still need to finish shaka in history.
Control of others does. Control of oneself doesn't. By the way, I'm not an anarchist, I just used to be. The great practical weakness of anarchism is that there's obviously no way to get people to control themselves without violating anarchist principles... meaning either you end up destroying the very system you want, or others will do it for you.
Anarchists would argue that society doesn't necessarily have to be centralized and organized around a government. I don't think anybody really argues that human society, in the sense most people think of it (some anarchists actually do argue against society but anarchists are really very pedantic and it usually turns out that they're against "society" for very specific, restricted definitions of the word) should not exist.
I am not one to normally argue for anarcy is the natural state of being, all these laws are just myths. They don't really exist except in the eyes of those following them. Anarchy only comes about when conditions get bad enough that people understand how shitty they really are. It is not a stretch of the imagination to think that we might one day live in a state of anarchy, just as many are living in a state without religion. This is not a hack on religion or laws or even me saying that Anarchy is the state that needs to be, but it is not a stretch of the imagination. I think we will glance at it and our grand children will live it. Just as in Aaron mans video, our societies are going from a Left to a Right, and the right is for the better.
Society in and of itself does not need government, and in that I agree with you. A sustainable society, however, could only exist under some form of government. If this were not the case and others' rights were infringed upon by those within their society, there would be no arbitrary entity to enforce the continuity of these rights. After that point, wouldn't it just become a slippery slope?
So do you think that anarchy may come about in the future as a kind of rebellion against the standard of living that they are in? I'll agree that it is possible taht something like that could happen because it has before. How do you see anarchy coming about in our grandchildren's generation? Also, what excatly did you mean by saying "our societies are going from a Left to a Right, and the right is for the better"? Are you referring to a reactionary stance on the political spectrum? Great thread btw.
I think people are moving on the political spectrum from left to right, meaning less government, making more choices on there own. I think this is where people say peaceful anarchy comes about. Slowly overtime world societies are going right on the political spectrum, that is a common trend historians have noticed. America is arguably ruled by an oligarchy, being a few at the top control it all. All things move in cycles, and there time will run up over time. We may never see it, but it will happen.