Is anarchy a feasible solution for the world's woes?

[Aaron]

I understand this has been a recent topic, but it was discussing a singular form of anarchy, Taoist anarchy and what I wanted to discuss was the more generalized idea of anarchy.

 

If you don't understand what anarchy is, the most basic definition is allowing others to live as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life.

 

I wont go much more in depth with it than that, but I would like people to explain why they answered yes or no, or even maybe. I think this is a healthy topic, because even if we cannot have a worldwide anarchic existence, we can cultivate our own individual anarchic existence. So what do you think?

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

fun topic

 

i tend to think of anarchy as working really well on a small scale, but not well on a large one. So local communities of people coming together would benefit the world, but large groups tend to run into the problem of who manages the group resources. Hence, government.

 

Of course thats an oversimplification, but i would shudder to think of the world as an anarchic collective. That entails levels of awaked-ness and responsibility that i don't see people exhibiting right now.

 

I think good government can do a lot to benefit humankind, or in other words, i don't think "gvmt = bad" de facto.

 

In an age of darkness, the prevalent energies of the world will affect humans whether they are in heirarchical systems of government or anarchic collectives. As anyone can reason, there are more factors that go into how humans act than whether or not they live in anarchy or not.

 

so in short, my answer is no.

[zerostao]

i agree about the small scale community readiness but as a general popluation, the majority of the masses.

no where close enuff on the evolved level to enter into a peaceful and prosperous state of anarchy.

on an indvidual level , i know some of us are in our anarchy each and everyday.

[9th]

I understand this has been a recent topic, but it was discussing a singular form of anarchy, Taoist anarchy and what I wanted to discuss was the more generalized idea of anarchy.

 

If you don't understand what anarchy is, the most basic definition is allowing others to live as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life.

 

I wont go much more in depth with it than that, but I would like people to explain why they answered yes or no, or even maybe. I think this is a healthy topic, because even if we cannot have a worldwide anarchic existence, we can cultivate our own individual anarchic existence. So what do you think?

 

Aaron

 

 

Anarchy as a socio-politcal perspective eschews hierarchical governance in favor of equality. It is not feasible for humanity at this time because the species on the whole has not evolved to the point where they can consistently choose equality and cooperation instead of competition and the domination/submission or master/slave scenario.

 

Essentially anarchy means you dont need outside regulations and their enforcers, because you can already do that for yourself. Its not about doing whatever you want, but rather being able to govern yourself so that you are in harmony with everything else as a natural consequence. It requires vigilance, bravery, creativity and many other qualities.. not just a disrespect for bullshit authoritarianism. It is the recognition of natural intelligence and conscience as being a far more efficient way of life instead of giving your mind over to artificial morality and cultural bias. The current systems which govern the world are still based on the battle for territorial dominance, which is the paradigm of the earthly animal.. not man. Man is the being which mediates between heaven and earth. Man is the essence of equality.

 

The old taoists were anarchists because they followed the natural law instead of the artificial ones created by "civilization". They attempted to make bridges for the rest of society, but as usual, the control freaks got in the way. It still happens on a very large scale in our current era... in fact it may even be worse in terms of prevalence. You can even find it on a forum with "Tao" in the title. The moderators here are a fucking joke in that respect.

[thelerner]

I voted no, not for the world until mankind has changed its nature. Anarchy breaks down into either survival of the fittest or rule of the most ruthless. The definition 'allowing others to live as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life' needs to have the word, 'hopefully' at the beginning, because there's this paradox within anarchy of not having an authority telling you what to do. So how do you control those who would dominate and steal from them.

 

In a good group with strong morals anarchy would be great. But in a large group of average people who run the spectrum of mostly good, a few great, a few bad; you eventually get the worst rising to the top, because there's no force to stop them, and if you create a force that could stop them, IT eventually becomes the force that needs stopping. I said it was paradoxical situation didn't I.

Edited April 3, 2012 by thelerner

[zanshin]

Yeah, bridges, in the modern world you would need some sort of centralized control to keep infrastructure up. In theory, anarchy might work well in small communities, but people are mobile, we are becoming more a global society. It seems like it would be helpful to have some universal standards so people could travel around easily. I do agree with allowing people to live as they see fit, eccentrics living individual anarchic existences and a bit of civil disobedience is probably good for society, we have way too many rules, too many sheep. So I think some minimalist central organization and standards, and otherwise let people be. But the small communities and groups, might be colorful and interesting as long as they don't get too organized, but I also see the eccentrics getting organized with weird little insular groups and weird little rules.

[zanshin]

it double posted

Edited April 3, 2012 by zanshin

[zanshin]

Oh, sorry, don't know why my last post was twice. I know it's fashionable to grumble about government, but just looked thru community guide and feeling love for my local government right now. We have nice parks system; they even built a meditation labyrinth last year! Working on putting in new bike and running trails. We have a great array of low cost classes for all from toddlers to seniors. Lots of nice programs and resources for seniors. We have low cost community garden plots where even apartment dwellers can grow their own food. We get free festivals, outdoor concerts and movies on the hill this summer. Just wish they'd fix that damn pothole on the corner!

[zerostao]

Oh, sorry, don't know why my last post was twice. I know it's fashionable to grumble about government, but just looked thru community guide and feeling love for my local government right now. We have nice parks system; they even built a meditation labyrinth last year! Working on putting in new bike and running trails. We have a great array of low cost classes for all from toddlers to seniors. Lots of nice programs and resources for seniors. We have low cost community garden plots where even apartment dwellers can grow their own food. We get free festivals, outdoor concerts and movies on the hill this summer. Just wish they'd fix that damn pothole on the corner!

 

sounds great. we all seem to be agreeing that on a smaller and local scale , the sense of community cooperation and shared objectives

is very doable. and on the larger scale things may seem to be not so harmonious. to be part of a community as the one you describe, i would be happy to be the one to fix the damn pothole. (where is my shovel, cold patch , and tamper)

i know i post alot on the ideal of anarchy. but really to live in the community that allows you to live the lifestyle you really want is very appealing, regardless of a govt or none. it is still the spirit of personal liberty, pursuit of happiness idea,( without constraints )