5 ms·
My only problem with such philosophies is that they tend to ignore human nature. Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to cont
by chm 13y ago
My only problem with such philosophies is that they tend to ignore human nature. Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. That's a lesson in History, not a dumb statement.
One might argue that now it's different, people have access to much more information than before, and that given enough time to educate the public enough on these matters of government, the Anarchist or Libertarian movements could gain critical mass and truly work.
I think not, simply because that would do nothing to change human nature. Most people, no matter how rational they can be in their everyday life, have emotions and desires, which aren't rational. Thus my impression that organized groups of people would always strive to control the masses.
- drcube 13y ago> Really nice in theory, but in practice, some thugs will always organize to control the masses. AKA "Government". Anarchy is about order without a state. Not chaos. It will take work, and probably incremental evolution rather than revolution, to get to that state. The goal is to become more free. Living under the boot of oppression -- whether from the government itself or a mafia-like criminal gang -- is not freedom.
- sliverstorm 13y agoI still don't really understand how you can establish order without winding up with a body to direct & maintain that order, aka a governing body, aka a government.
- tokenizer 13y agoHello sliverstorm. I'm an anarchist. I don't want to tell you how to think at all but I seriously recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PbLLBfiM8 It's fairly non biased, and explains what you're asking. Its position is more on anarcho-capitalism (what most of the world/our day to day consists of) while most anarchists will believe in collective labour and possession only property.
- eloisius 13y ago> some thugs will always organize to control the masses So the solution is to preemptively install an organization of thugs to control the masses? I don't think your assessment of human nature is fair. At some point in history, having a king was an improvement upon existing social conditions. Going from constantly warring tribal society to one united under a king meant safety and relative prosperity and was in fact a social gain, though we tend to think of kings only in a negative context at this point. The autocrat pilferers. However, we inevitable evolved past the need for kings. With wider spread literacy, trade, communication, etc… individuals became more capable of guiding their own society, thus democracy emerged. Your average 6th century peasant had as much use for voting as they would've for string theory. I'm not saying we're there yet, but to say there's never to be a time when we evolve past the need to make decisions for our societies via government, even a "democratic" one, is foolish, I think. One day I think we will look back on democracy as we do upon kings now.
- tokenizer 13y ago> One day I think we will look back on democracy as we do upon kings now. Yup. Personally, I think tolerance and total pacifism would be needed in this next evolutionary step, so it'll probably take a few wars for us to be tired of conflict... I can already see many young people being disillusioned by politics, war, and nationalism. But many still adhere to those ideologies as well.
- tokenizer 13y agoYou're probably right. I'm definitely an idealist but I'm an odd case. I believe in total pacifism and confederate municipalism. I also believe that good only comes from grief. We'll have to die/suffer/make a lot more mistakes if we're going to be able to function as a consensus based anarchy.