Tomorrow You're Homeless. Tonight it's a Blast.

[mystoo]

Anyone ever been part of a protest and/or riot?
This damn G20 is going on in Toronto Right now (in case you didn't know).
Just waiting for the shit to hit the fan.

[Mr Karl]

I just saw that on the news.......I wonder if these 'anarchist's' realize that in a state of true anarchy they'd be the first to go?

[One Eyed Cat]

G-Something was here last year. We just avoided it.

[mystoo]

It's madness. People are so fucking dumb.

[Raza]

I've been part of a few protests. Only one was vaguely riot-ish. They were fun, but the real punks out there always make me feel soft and decadent.

I just saw that on the news.......I wonder if these 'anarchist's' realize that in a state of true anarchy they'd be the first to go?

If you knowingly define anarchy differently from them, what does it matter what realization of your version would imply? It's not what they are protesting for and you know it.

Irony doesn't work if you have to swap definitions in the middle of your comparison.

[mystoo]

I think protests are a waste of time. You've got your 'peaceful protests', which are basically just parades and on the other hand you've got a bunch of dumbshits burning police cars because you know, that will make the gov't change policies.
Maybe I just don't know my history very well but I'm doubtful that either of these approaches bring about any real change.
It kind of looked like what happened in Toronto this weekend was just a bunch of people causing shit because they could. And lots of people showing up just so they could say they were there. I didn't see anyone actually speaking about anything.
Of course, though, I wasn't there and can only rely on media for my info. And we all know what they're good for.

[Raza]

I think protests are a waste of time. You've got your 'peaceful protests', which are basically just parades and on the other hand you've got a bunch of dumbshits burning police cars because you know, that will make the gov't change policies.
Maybe I just don't know my history very well but I'm doubtful that either of these approaches bring about any real change.

You're mostly right, of course. Protest marches have been absorbed into our system of political dynamics and rendered mostly ineffectual; much like voting they are more an outlet of frustration than a means to enact change. Burning police cars is an exception in the sense that it is not designed to change anybodies mind, but simply to render the police force one car less effective at enforcing its dominance - an approach far less idealistic than the dream of taking the streets with insightful slogans and gathering momentum until everybody is on your side and the world is saved in a single revolution, but once you adjust your expectations a relatively effective one.

If people want change, they have to stop trying to convince abstract external entities like governments to see things their way, and start simply doing what they want to see done. As a society we're conditioned to pursue ideals by vouching for them, as if everything will be made right if only you can convince some divine parent figure that your perspective is the right one, all the while living our lives after formal models that pretend to represent a consensus that we somehow don't count towards.

Freedoms are taken, not given. Ignoring a law is much more effective than voting to have it rewritten, and at least as honest a presentation of your opinion. Sitting by the sidelines and complaining is neither useful nor charming; the only things you can really do are either living your life as if the world where already perfect, or physically sabotaging the forces that keep you from doing the former. There are times for discussion and changing peoples minds, but save these for people that are willing to listen - and don't wait to act until some mystical moment where everybody agrees with you, as it will not come.

Of course, though, I wasn't there and can only rely on media for my info. And we all know what they're good for.

Media mis- or underrepresentation is the primary means of containing peaceful protests. For everything they show you there are always ten things they do not, and you know they'll pick the bits they do show to facilitate their own perspective. Even expertly reading between they lines you're likely to miss three fourths of what actually went on.

[TheDeathKnight]

Well, the one thing protests and riots do, is let the government and companies know that what they are doing is pissing some people off.

There are plenty of companies that don't do anything bad, and there are good governments out there, where the people don't complain. So if your citizens are rioting, and screaming, and pissed off, maybe it lets them know that their policies are not very popular. Companies especially want people to like them, and to buy their products. Same thing with politicians. They want people to like them, so they get re-elected.

But there needs to be a clear reason to riot and protest. A clear message.
If it's just random "anarchists" rioting for the hell of it, without any agenda, then it makes them look stupid.
And it makes all the other protest groups look stupid by association.

But it does bring attention to problems, if they are clear about what they are doing.
Like the whale-wars guys who target Japanese whaling ships.
They bring attention to a specific issue by their actions, even if their actions are stupid or futile.

But I agree with Raza, in that I think the best avenue to change, is to change yourself,
and the people around you. Then it becomes a progressive and generational change in policies.
It's hard to convince a capitalist CEO, who has grown very rich by exploiting people and resources,
to suddenly change his tune, and become an environmental socialist. But you can influence that
guy's kids, and other people you know, and society at large, so perhaps the next generation
won't have the blind devotion to profit, with no concern for the environment, etc. I consider
my hippie parents to be the first generation of environmentalists, and social progressives.
So they taught that stuff to me, so that I would never be some scumbag CEO who would
**** the planet for profit. So I'd say the hippies were maybe 25% of the population
back then, and they were not strong enough to overturn the conservatives. But maybe
now we are at 50%. So now we are on equal footing with the conservatives. Going back
and forth every election. So maybe in another generation we will be at 75%, and can
actually start making some serious progress.

But in general I think violence just makes your cause look bad.
Unless it's a life-or-death fight for survival, I don't think violence is needed.

[mystoo]

If it's just random "anarchists" rioting for the hell of it, without any agenda, then it makes them look stupid.
And it makes all the other protest groups look stupid by association.

That's exactly what happened too! Sort of justified that $1.1 billion spent on security. Sort of.

[Mr Karl]

If you knowingly define anarchy differently from them, what does it matter what realization of your version would imply? It's not what they are protesting for and you know it.

Irony doesn't work if you have to swap definitions in the middle of your comparison.

anarchy is simply a world where everyone is free to achieve thier own utopia, to the best of their abilities................they call themselves anarchist's, but they're not. and they aren't protesting anything either, they're just being dummies

[Mr Karl]

one interesting thing though......we've got a new tax coming...now, the indians don't like to pay taxes and when they heard that they were going to be taxed too they said that if that was true they'd protest at the g20........suprise, suprise, Indians don't have to pay the tax......

They know how to protest

[Raza]

anarchy is simply a world where everyone is free to achieve thier own utopia, to the best of their abilities................they call themselves anarchist's, but they're not. and they aren't protesting anything either, they're just being dummies

Well, I call myself an anarchist, and I don't quite agree.

"anarchy is simply a world where everyone is free to achieve thier own utopia, to the best of their abilities"... this sounds nice, but is rather unspecific. Capitalism would claim the same virtues, while being markedly unanarchic.

I would say that an anarchy is a society without rank (including both hierarchical rank and more complex roles prescribing affinity to specific behaviours) and (implicitly) coercion, since authority is the psychological impression of force. Considering that nation states and people made powerful in the pursuit of money are primary sources of both those things, I think that protesting the top-anything most economically powerful countries in the world is entirely relevant. The effectiveness of their tactics may be debatable, but anybody buying into this 'pointless rioting for the sake of it' portrayal contributes more to that than they do.

[milkingbreast]

Authority and law are not things presented onto a people, they are a manifestation of that people's intention to regulate and direct itself. If Moses came down with commandments and those commandments survived, then it is because they were necessary and desired. Human beings will always want to impose order and structure on the world because they desire to move forward and not laterally. Laws must always exist and when they become senseless they must be deposed or slowly relegated.

[Raza]

There is no such thing as 'a people' in ethics; there are only individuals, and the fact is that law authority are things presented by some individuals onto other individuals. Those other individuals do not share responsibility for this just for living in the same area.

If Moses came down with commandments and those commandments survived, then it is because they were necessary and desired. Human beings will always want to impose order and structure on the world because they desire to move forward and not laterally. Laws must always exist and when they become senseless they must be deposed or slowly relegated.

I see your bible reference, and raise you some Darwin. =)

Natural selection applies to more than just genetics; if something survives, it is because it has the mechanical ability to sustain and/or repeat itself - this is a question of power, not desirability. Law and authority remain as repeating patterns of human social psychology, rationalized by convention. Their continued existence is no more evidence of any benefits than the persistence of war is for the usefulness of that.

[milkingbreast]

There is no such thing as 'a people' in ethics; there are only individuals, and the fact is that law authority are things presented by some individuals onto other individuals. Those other individuals do not share responsibility for this just for living in the same area.

Depends on how you see the world. I have a philosophy almost entirely of my own making (what is borrowed is usually stretched to peculiar angles). I'm guessing it might be a bit too radical for Ethics Class.

Natural selection applies to more than just genetics; if something survives, it is because it has the mechanical ability to sustain and/or repeat itself - this is a question of power, not desirability. Law and authority remain as repeating patterns of human social psychology, rationalized by convention.

A wonderful quotation. It approaches me like howitzer shell, screeching down and perfectly targeted. I will reply when I have more time and am a little less tired.

[Mr Karl]

Well, I call myself an anarchist,.

your as much an anarchist as I am

[TheDeathKnight]

Yeah, Punk rockers in the 70's laid claim to being anarchists, and they did a pretty decent job of it. The idea was to pretty much just wander around and do whatever you want. Get drunk, break things, be rude to other people, etc.

But modern day anarchists seem to just use the term to be "cool", and use it as an excuse to break things during a riot, etc. Without having any real reason to do so. It's not nearly as well thought-out as Raza's philosophy.

I don't think it's "anarchy" to pursue your own personal freedom.

Anarchy, to me, is advocating a society without any law, order, or structure.
Just everyone doing anything and everything they want.
But I am pretty sure most people don't *really* want true anarchy.
Otherwise if someone wants to beat the crap out of you, or kill you, they can.
I just don't see how anyone could consider that kind of world or lifestyle to be appealing.

But it's very reasonable to want personal freedom.
To be free to do *anything* you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
But that's not the same as anarchy.

[Mr Karl]

well, whatever anyone thinks it means, it can't work, not with people anyway......most people need to be told what to do, and other people aren't inclined to do anything.......I could go on but why bother........my point I was trying to make earlier is that if you were to remove law order and structure the big percentage of the population that you don't hear about would remove the 'anarchists' and the annoying protesters. People gotta also realize that they are free to enjoy rioting because there is law order and structure......

fucking protesters fucked up steve's music..........why the fuck would they do that?

[mystoo]

fucking protesters fucked up steve's music..........why the fuck would they do that?

A lot of them weren't from around here

[Mr Karl]

yeah well, they should have done a bit of research first.

[Morning Glory]

I just saw that on the news.......I wonder if these 'anarchist's' realize that in a state of true anarchy they'd be the first to go?

haha. gotta agree with raza on this one, that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Why would the group be the "first to go" if society conformed to their ideals? wouldn't it be everyone else that didn't agree to them that went, assuming that the first thing they did was execute a vast number of people according to their group associations?

[Mr Karl]

well, maybe I didn't word that right.....in anarchy though everyone is free to conform to whatever they want to conform to. Now do a count of your typical riot turnout . Now add all the other people into the mix. Do you really think they're going to throw rocks at windows? Why would they? that's not what touches a nerve with them. They see things differently, they're going to pursue other things. Now a lot of these other people, they're actualy pretty smart, they've work hard, they're quite a tough bunch and they've also got lives they're looking out for, and they're tired of seeing people getting handouts from money that's been they're contribution through taxes.

anyways, there's no such thing as an anarchist..........some fascists can get mistaken for anarchists though.......

[TheDeathKnight]

anyways, there's no such thing as an anarchist........

Wouldn't someone like GG Allin fit the bill?
Someone who just lives their life doing whatever the hell they want...
No concern for laws, other people, society, etc?

[Mr Karl]

he was wierd

[Raza]

Depends on how you see the world. I have a philosophy almost entirely of my own making (what is borrowed is usually stretched to peculiar angles). I'm guessing it might be a bit too radical for Ethics Class.

True; it's not quite a given, even if I don't see it working out any other way.

A wonderful quotation. It approaches me like howitzer shell, screeching down and perfectly targeted. I will reply when I have more time and am a little less tired.

Thanks! That was a wonderful mental image.

[Raza]

your as much an anarchist as I am

I was gonna say 'good job', but I'm really not sure that you are.

well, whatever anyone thinks it means, it can't work, not with people anyway......most people need to be told what to do, and other people aren't inclined to do anything....

What people are and aren't inclined to do is largely a product of culture, though; what people do in our society is only a small fraction of what they can do period, and even the kind of thinking where we perceive our options as multiple choice rather than open entry is itself encouraged by our regulated social structure.

If many people do not currently do anything unless they are told, then that is as much an argument against our system as it is for it. Mind-numbing docility, like any modern consumer product, creates its own demand.

...I could go on but why bother........my point I was trying to make earlier is that if you were to remove law order and structure the big percentage of the population that you don't hear about would remove the 'anarchists' and the annoying protesters. People gotta also realize that they are free to enjoy rioting because there is law order and structure......

They are doing that. What do you think the cops are, or who invented all those petty laws they can diffuse protests with when they aren't actually doing anything destructive? Have you ever actually been to a protest like that? They're not free by law to do those things at all - the forms of dissent we are free to practice by law have been selected for their utter harmlessness. The fact that they are not legally free to (but that it can be done anyway) is one third of the point that these protests make - the second 33% being direct damage to McDonalds trash containers, and the final bit the implication that even an impact that pathetic registers magnitudes higher than voting or staging a peaceful rally aimed at receiving beneficial media representation.

fucking protesters fucked up steve's music..........why the fuck would they do that?

Presumably most anarchists aren't too impressed with celebrities. Who's steve and why should they give a shit?

well, maybe I didn't word that right.....in anarchy though everyone is free to conform to whatever they want to conform to. Now do a count of your typical riot turnout . Now add all the other people into the mix. Do you really think they're going to throw rocks at windows? Why would they? that's not what touches a nerve with them. They see things differently, they're going to pursue other things. Now a lot of these other people, they're actualy pretty smart, they've work hard, they're quite a tough bunch and they've also got lives they're looking out for, and they're tired of seeing people getting handouts from money that's been they're contribution through taxes.

I'm not seeing your argument. Anarchists wouldn't be having riots in an effective anarchy. They'd mostly be living in communes on biological DIY farms or debating the proper definition of anarchosyndicalism in political reading groups, hippieish shit like that.

[Raza]

But modern day anarchists seem to just use the term to be "cool", and use it as an excuse to break things during a riot, etc. Without having any real reason to do so. It's not nearly as well thought-out as Raza's philosophy.

I think you're thinking of hot topic skater kids? And they don't go to riots, unfortunately.

My philosphy is anarchism, or at least one of a bunch of rather similar versions of it. Those people rioting at protests are a fairly philosophical lot, when the ski masks come off. Sure, a lot of them are genuinely angry, but they're mostly the people that suffered directly and personally from the system and have valid reason to be. A lot of others are social/political theorists that arrived at radicalism intellectually long before mustering up the courage to pick up their first crowbar or throw their first rock, though.

I don't think it's "anarchy" to pursue your own personal freedom.

Anarchy, to me, is advocating a society without any law, order, or structure.
Just everyone doing anything and everything they want.
But I am pretty sure most people don't *really* want true anarchy.
Otherwise if someone wants to beat the crap out of you, or kill you, they can.
I just don't see how anyone could consider that kind of world or lifestyle to be appealing.
But it's very reasonable to want personal freedom.
To be free to do *anything* you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
But that's not the same as anarchy.

Well, that's the pop definition. And you're free to use it, but it is neither unusually insightful nor in line with the word's roots - which mean 'without a ruler', broadly interpreted as 'without privilege or power disparities'. It doesn't say anything about a lack of non-authority based ethics, or violent chaos - these associations come mostly from ages of the term's use in fearmongering political propaganda, unsurprisingly mostly by rulers.

Regardless of what definition you prefer, though, keep in mind that the people that call themselves anarchists at these protests are using their own and not responsible for yours.

[BiggTruxx]

I think protests are a waste of time. You've got your 'peaceful protests', which are basically just parades and on the other hand you've got a bunch of dumbshits burning police cars because you know, that will make the gov't change policies.
Maybe I just don't know my history very well but I'm doubtful that either of these approaches bring about any real change.
It kind of looked like what happened in Toronto this weekend was just a bunch of people causing shit because they could. And lots of people showing up just so they could say they were there. I didn't see anyone actually speaking about anything.
Of course, though, I wasn't there and can only rely on media for my info. And we all know what they're good for.

Agree: 1) media not good for much; why no interviews with protesters or protest leaders? of course, the flipside could be that they don't want to give them any more press or attention as it would only encourage them... 2) people burning police cars is ineffective and stupid

Disagree: power of peaceful protest... Martin Luther King's "Stride Toward Freedom"... A lesson in appropriate use of nonviolent demonstration. With a great sense of purpose, he and his followers took the final step that would make a reality out of the vision of the founding fathers. He would be appalled by the New Black Panthers.

[Raza]

That's more of a namedrop than a counterargument, tbh.

[Mr Karl]

I was gonna say 'good job', but I'm really not sure that you are.


.

of course I'm not.....I'm into other things

[TheDeathKnight]

Anarchy:

* "No rulership or enforced authority."[1]

* "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ."[2]

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[3]

* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]

So if you say anarchy is people living without a ruler, that still means that without rules,
or laws, or government, people *could* do destructive and violent things. I am not saying
all current anarchists want to do things like that. But from my experience, people who say
they are anarchists, use it as an excuse to misbehave at protests like this. They could protest
peacefully, but they decide it would be fun to throw a rock through a window, or light a
car on fire. Even if that car is someone's property, or the window is part of a privately
owned store. So to me, anarchists like that give the word a bad name. Because they aren't
just living life outside the law. Like doing drugs even if they are illegal, or walking
around naked because they feel like it.

Actually, the more I think about it, people who do stuff like that are proper anarchists.
They are just doing whatever they want, regardless of laws.

My point is that being that kind of anarchist is somewhat juvenile and stupid.

It's just putting a political or philosophical name to "behaving badly",
so they can justify their actions.

I'd much rather have people be violent for a specific reason, and direct it at a
specific target. If you are mad at some corporation, attack their offices. If you
are mad at cops, burn a cop car. But don't randomly destroy things for no
reason. Because if someone feels it's ok to hurt and destroy people and things,
then it's just as legitimate for a cop to beat you or destroy your stuff. Then it
becomes nihilistic and stupid. If you don't like a law, and decide to break it,
that's fine. But to say you hate and ignore *all* laws is dumb, because laws
against violence also protect you from people who would do you harm.

[Mr Karl]

Actually, the more I think about it, people who do stuff like that are proper anarchists.
.

yeah, and so is bernhard goetz, so, if the whole world colapsed into anarchy how would it all turn out?

[Raza]

So if you say anarchy is people living without a ruler, that still means that without rules,
or laws, or government, people *could* do destructive and violent things.

Yes, of course. Just like they can do violent and destructive things with rules, laws and governments. And just like rulers and law enforcers do violent and destructive things now.

No theory can take the potential for that away. But think about yourself for a moment. Why is it that you do not do these things, presuming that you don't? Is the desire there, but are you tangibly afraid of getting caught and locked up? Or is it just not something you want to do?

Culture, far more than penal law, is what keeps people from doing things seen as detrimental to others. To create a non-violent society you have to set precedent after precedent of tolerance, and preferably cooperation and looking out for eachother. You have to remove coercion from social functions altogether, ideally, so that no one feels that they are being victimized - and consequently, no one is looking for an opportunity to strike back at anything.

Anarchism is all about this. Voluntary (as opposed to territorial) communities, direct consensus-based democracy (and when that's not going anywhere, simply autonomy), freely shared resources and information... and these ideals are practiced, in anarchic communities.

Current pseudodemocratic capitalism? Not so much. Penal law is actually one of the most violent and coercive aspects left in our society, and its enforcement causes tons of conflicts - their excuse is that they're implicitly the good guys, but that is questionable at best. Our 'democracy' just isn't, really; no single individual has ever influenced the way government affected their life by how they voted, or didn't. We're jealously territorial, both through national borders and through 'private property', always guarding that no one gets anything that belongs to you - but if you look at how those borders originally came to be drawn where they are, there's definitely no valid excuse for that privilege. It's just "I have it now, and you'll take it from my cold, dead hands".

And the people that benefit from this system would like you to think that it is simply inevitable - that a world with fewer coercive mechanics is impossible, and that we should actively guard today's bubbles of semi-civilization with guns and nightsticks against outside intrusion and internal subversion. I say that that'll never hold. There's no such thing as a bubble society, and the privileged few benefiting from them will (rightfully) never hold their own against the masses whose backs they are riding on. The harder you try to force things in line, the uglier it'll get when it collapses.

I am not saying
all current anarchists want to do things like that. But from my experience, people who say
they are anarchists, use it as an excuse to misbehave at protests like this. They could protest
peacefully, but they decide it would be fun to throw a rock through a window, or light a
car on fire. Even if that car is someone's property, or the window is part of a privately
owned store. So to me, anarchists like that give the word a bad name. Because they aren't
just living life outside the law. Like doing drugs even if they are illegal, or walking
around naked because they feel like it.

You know rioting anarchists generally do target big chain corporations, or the cars of the politicians and industry tycoons at the protested meeting in question, right?

Well, most people don't, but that's 90% media misrepresentation. Every pamphlet and flyer and demo guidebook and meeting I've read or attended has encouraged picking your targets for vandalism consciously, based on the history of whichever individual or group would be paying for repairs. And I'm not saying nobody has ever gotten over-excited and lost their judgment, simply failed to pay attention during the pre-meeting, or rationalized things a bit more liberally than the rest of us would. But I also know that these people are immediately told off when they hit a personally owned car or small family business - and that protesters are warned against agent-provocateurs trying to convince you to cross these lines to make the whole thing look bad. Draw your own conclusions from that.

My point is that being that kind of anarchist is somewhat juvenile and stupid.

They would be, but this 'type' is mostly a boogy-strawman. Mainstream society (and goths and cosplayers are part of the mainstream, where social and political subjects are concerned) receives incredibly filtered information about radical actions.

I'd much rather have people be violent for a specific reason, and direct it at a
specific target. If you are mad at some corporation, attack their offices. If you
are mad at cops, burn a cop car.

Then you'd probably get along with most of us. =)

If you don't like a law, and decide to break it,
that's fine. But to say you hate and ignore *all* laws is dumb, because laws
against violence also protect you from people who would do you harm.

What if you object to the format of law itself, on top of the messages of some specific laws?

Having armed guards around enforcing the will of people in palaces is only the first thing we tried, as a species. We stuck with it for a lack of imagination, combined with the fact that the people in palaces generally liked it that way, and - having armed guards at their service and all - proved difficult to convince otherwise. So, I'm just saying: trying something a little less violent might not be such a bad idea.

[TheDeathKnight]

I think the problem is that in America, we have a LOT of violent people.
In Los Angeles, all we need is a small spark of inspiration, and thousands of people riot.
And they don't riot peacefully.
They burn stores, beat people up, sexually assault, kill people, and steal stuff.

I think the idea of anarchy, and the absence of formal law enforcement seems a little
more achievable and likely in Europe. In America, most of us feel that if the cops
went away, the rest of society would go wild, and not in a good way.

For your brand of anarchy to work on a large scale, it would require the
population to be educated, and smart enough to be fair, and socially
educated enough not to be selfish. Which we Americans are also very good at.

If most Americans ran their own towns, without any cops, and no federal influence,
the leaders would do things for their own advantage. I don't think peaceful anarchy
is any more likely than people being capable of true communism. Which also failed
in Russia and China.

Capitalism is tied to Darwinism. It's our nature to survive and to get ahead of others.
To have more resources, more babies, more money, etc.
So the smart people can philosophize about how great it would be if we
could all get along. But as soon as you take away the cops, and the enforcement,
people start trying to get ahead of each other. And eventually that leads to
resentment, violence, backstabbing, and competition.

We are still animals.

One debate I was having with some people on another message board,
is if the *average* guy would sexually assault a woman, if there were no
social or legal consequences to their actions. My opinion is that most guys
would, unless they were specifically taught not to, or were very empathetic
people. But the "average" person only cares about their own needs and
desires. They don't care about other people, as much as they are concerned
about consequences. Same thing goes for stealing. If you found someone's
money on the side of the road, would you take it or return it? Let's say
a large amount. Like a million dollars. Then take away the possibility
of any kind of legal consequences. No one will ever know, and no one
will ever punish you. Most people would take it...

[BiggTruxx]

That's more of a namedrop than a counterargument, tbh.

Not a namedrop at all... But a specific example of my broader generalization that peaceable protest can achieve desired ends.

[BiggTruxx]

DeathKnight and Raza: Great discussion... Just wanted to add a few ideas...

Can we agree that the definition of anarchy is absence of rule of law? Meaning total "liberty"....? That is where I will start.

Anarchy represents a danger to the individual because as he is pursuing his ends, others may use coercive force to enslave him to meet their own ends. Thus, true anarchy never lasts long - it is always replaced by tyranny. (Power abhors a vacuum.) The only way to avoid tyranny is to make a deal with those around us that coercive force will not be used - except as punishment for USING coercive force! We give up "total liberty" (aka anarchy) and agree to live with a few basic laws that benefit the individual and allow him to pursue his ends while preventing him from using force as a means.

The resulting economic system must logically be capitalism - a market of free men circulating ideas freely and trading with each other freely. The only real job of a government in this system is to protect these "free" men from using coercive force or committing other kinds of fraud against one another.

Last point - Respectfully, no such thing as Darwinism - it would be called natural selection. And like natural selection, capitalism does not ALWAYS favor the strongest or biggest, but only the most well-adapted organism - or product on the free market, to extend that metaphor.

[Mr Karl]

One debate I was having with some people on another message board,
is if the *average* guy would sexually assault a woman, if there were no
social or legal consequences to their actions. My opinion is that most guys
would, unless they were specifically taught not to, or were very empathetic
people.
...

interesting......I don't know about 'most' but I guess quite a lot would

[Mr Karl]

quite an intersting concept when you really start thinking about it

[Raza]

I think the problem is that in America, we have a LOT of violent people.
In Los Angeles, all we need is a small spark of inspiration, and thousands of people riot.
And they don't riot peacefully.
They burn stores, beat people up, sexually assault, kill people, and steal stuff.

I think the idea of anarchy, and the absence of formal law enforcement seems a little
more achievable and likely in Europe. In America, most of us feel that if the cops
went away, the rest of society would go wild, and not in a good way.

For your brand of anarchy to work on a large scale, it would require the
population to be educated, and smart enough to be fair, and socially
educated enough not to be selfish. Which we Americans are also very good at.

Ok, interesting angle. Europe isn't better across the board, though, and America has its more sensible communities too.

Mostly though, I think this isn't a matter of 'unrealistic' so much as 'a few steps further away than some places'. If there's lots of coercion in your current system, you're that much further from an anarchy, but to ever change that for the better you still need to get that much closer again. I'm not expecting the revolution to happen in a day - anarchy is the logical extreme of an ideal that most people anywhere accept in some shape or form.

Americans in particular are keen on talking about democracy and equality - both of which are pretty much synonyms for anarchy, if you apply them consistently.

If most Americans ran their own towns, without any cops, and no federal influence,
the leaders would do things for their own advantage. I don't think peaceful anarchy
is any more likely than people being capable of true communism. Which also failed
in Russia and China.

Like your federal leaders do things to their advantage now? =P

But definitely, yes, they would. The thing is though; you can't always decline to take a step forward on account of the distance you won't cross with it. You can't take one giant leap to perfection, and everything is always interwoven so that a step ahead could conceivably cause trouble if something else stays behind, but most of the time it's still for the better to improve what you can, when you can. The system is dreadfully imperfect now, but it still runs, more or less. It's more like a Kalashnikov than a card house, really.

Also, the USSR and China aren't very good examples of communism. They failed on a ton of other levels.

Capitalism is tied to Darwinism. It's our nature to survive and to get ahead of others.
To have more resources, more babies, more money, etc.
So the smart people can philosophize about how great it would be if we
could all get along. But as soon as you take away the cops, and the enforcement,
people start trying to get ahead of each other. And eventually that leads to
resentment, violence, backstabbing, and competition.

That's one set of attitudes people are capable of having. Cooperation, care, tolerance and the like are another. A society will grow towards what it focuses on; neither is completely removable, but neither is intrinsically dominant, either. This is a cliché in the capitalism/communism debate that I never saw the relevance of.

The problem with capitalism is that is escalates these attitudes by glorifying them, entrenching them in habit. It's a band-aid fix that lets the wound infect under it.

We are still animals.

We're animals with profound mechanisms for empathy and bonding, which is exceptional.

You know who else has that? Bonobos. They get along rather nicely. Compare to chimps, who do not. =)

One debate I was having with some people on another message board,
is if the *average* guy would sexually assault a woman, if there were no
social or legal consequences to their actions. My opinion is that most guys
would, unless they were specifically taught not to, or were very empathetic
people. But the "average" person only cares about their own needs and
desires. They don't care about other people, as much as they are concerned
about consequences. Same thing goes for stealing. If you found someone's
money on the side of the road, would you take it or return it? Let's say
a large amount. Like a million dollars. Then take away the possibility
of any kind of legal consequences. No one will ever know, and no one
will ever punish you. Most people would take it...

Interesting thought! I think I agree with you; empathy and sexual desire would compete at all times, but without social conditioning on the subject the ball would be dropped at some point during an average person's lifetime. Likely setting a precedent for more, at that.

[incog]

I think the problem is that in America, we have a LOT of violent people.
In Los Angeles, all we need is a small spark of inspiration, and thousands of people riot.
And they don't riot peacefully.
They burn stores, beat people up, sexually assault, kill people, and steal stuff.

I think the idea of anarchy, and the absence of formal law enforcement seems a little
more achievable and likely in Europe. In America, most of us feel that if the cops
went away, the rest of society would go wild, and not in a good way.

For your brand of anarchy to work on a large scale, it would require the
population to be educated, and smart enough to be fair, and socially
educated enough not to be selfish. Which we Americans are also very good at.

If most Americans ran their own towns, without any cops, and no federal influence,
the leaders would do things for their own advantage. I don't think peaceful anarchy
is any more likely than people being capable of true communism. Which also failed
in Russia and China.

Capitalism is tied to Darwinism. It's our nature to survive and to get ahead of others.
To have more resources, more babies, more money, etc.
So the smart people can philosophize about how great it would be if we
could all get along. But as soon as you take away the cops, and the enforcement,
people start trying to get ahead of each other. And eventually that leads to
resentment, violence, backstabbing, and competition.

We are still animals.

One debate I was having with some people on another message board,
is if the *average* guy would sexually assault a woman, if there were no
social or legal consequences to their actions. My opinion is that most guys
would, unless they were specifically taught not to, or were very empathetic
people. But the "average" person only cares about their own needs and
desires. They don't care about other people, as much as they are concerned
about consequences. Same thing goes for stealing. If you found someone's
money on the side of the road, would you take it or return it? Let's say
a large amount. Like a million dollars. Then take away the possibility
of any kind of legal consequences. No one will ever know, and no one
will ever punish you. Most people would take it...

I am not an anarchist but it seems like the LA kind of riot is usually a really different riot than the political protest type.