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

[Morning Glory]

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.

I don't agree with that definition. Anarchy is the absence of forced submission to authority. If a group of people voluntarily associated and consented freely to a set of rules to govern them, they would be creating a law. But they would be doing so according to anarchist principles in that each individual was practicing self-determination.

I don't think you understand the idea of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where market value is based on land, labor and means of production. Capitalism is incompatible with Anarchism because it is inherently authoritarian. It requires that someone dictate what the market value of capital is, and that is generally the person or group that has the most. It is inevitably hierarchical because of the inequality of capital distribution and ownership which further leads to authoritarian power.

[BiggTruxx]

I don't agree with that definition. Anarchy is the absence of forced submission to authority. If a group of people voluntarily associated and consented freely to a set of rules to govern them, they would be creating a law. But they would be doing so according to anarchist principles in that each individual was practicing self-determination.

Self-determination is exactly the principle on which the framers built the Constitution. They defined broad rights that the federated government could NOT take from people. If people were not into those things, they were free to leave. People "voluntarily associate" all the time - the right to assemble cannot be abridged per the 1st Amendment. That is different from anarchy because it prevents YOU from preventing MY assembly.

As far as your "consent freely" phrase, there would be chaos if each subsequent generation had to revisit the Constitution and vote in order to achieve consensus. In truth, each individual is given an education that, in part, explores history and the ideals that the laws are founded upon. Thereafter, the person is "free" to consent or to break with the past by a) protest, b) effecting change via service to the society through elected office, c) rebellion followed by punishment, d) rebellion followed by a successful rearrangement of the rules, or e) leaving the society.

I don't think you understand the idea of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where market value is based on land, labor and means of production. Capitalism is incompatible with Anarchism because it is inherently authoritarian. It requires that someone dictate what the market value of capital is, and that is generally the person or group that has the most. It is inevitably hierarchical because of the inequality of capital distribution and ownership which further leads to authoritarian power.

Only the "masses" (the public as the Greeks would say) can dictate the true value of something - as well as how that value can be traded for, whether in terms of time, work output, product, or capital. If people are not willing to pay your asking price or you screw the customer, your business fails. Unless you live in the Bush/Obama world where failure earns you a few hundred billion in taxpayer money.

"Inequal distribution" does not imply authoritarianism. Equality is a matter of law, not an ideal social condition. It must remain so, lest we fall into true authoritarianism, i.e. Cuba.

[TheDeathKnight]

The main thing you have to factor in, is the fact that 75% of society is not educated.
Or let's say, "Not enlightened". They may know their alphabet, and some math,
but they aren't philosophers. And even those who are educated, not all of them
want peace, love, and cooperation. So if you just toss all the laws out the window,
and let everyone fend for themselves, without laws or structure, a lot of people would behave badly.
Look at parts of Africa that are fairly lawless. People get killed in huge numbers. Go anywhere
that is "lawless", walk around, and see how things go.

So when I look at ideas like anarchy, or communism, I look at the reality of life.
That's why communism failed, in my opinion. It wasn't because it was a bad idea.
It's a very cool idea. But it does not take into account human nature...
So the same thing is true about anarchy as a system for living.
It's a cool idea, but people would take advantage of it.

And back to the original post, about rioters and protesters,
those are a perfect example of people taking a cool idea,
and using it as a justification for burning a car, or breaking
a window, simply because it's fun, rather than actually
trying to make a political point. They can just say,
"I'm an anarchist, and I'm protesting! Woooo!"
SMASH!

[Morning Glory]

I see your point BigTruxx, but I still contend that it is fundamentally opposed to the principles of anarchism. Most anarchists don't really believe in the concept of rights because it is a flawed philosophical ideal... nevertheless, accepting that at face value, if one does posses rights (according to anarchists) they are entirely derived from individual self-determination and they cannot be given, taken or upheld by an outside entity such as a government. In short the Constitution is nothing but a set of laws that some people choose to follow and others are forced to follow under threat of violence (aka. police action) by those that believe in it.

The only thing remotely anarchistic about the US government is that it's citizens are "free to leave" it's declared territory, but they are not free to follow their own laws and create their own society within it, and if they left the actual country, they would have to submit to the same authority of some other state power- that is if they were even permitted entrance at all, which may not happen due to laws about immigration.

The thing is that for most of human history people lived without expressed laws and de-centralized power and I think that they tended to be far less violent in those times. All of the bloodiest human conflicts occurred under state rule, and the very worst of all under nations following the ideals that BT espoused considering themselves to be "free people." I don't see that as a very convincing argument for the peace of authoritarian law.

While I do think that social psychology is what gets people to conform and to support the established power dynamics, I don't think that it is entirely that power structure that is the cause of humanity's problems. I really believe that it is that inequality of resource distribution and that is the key difference between peaceable people- and war-faring people- in the past that lived in what could be called anarchistic societies and civilized people today. In a society where capital dictates not only social power but the very essentials of survival of course the people with the most capital will have the most power over others and wield the authority of society.

As for the original topic, I personally don't believe in protest as a meaningful or effective tactic of social change. That is a matter of opinion. As far as Anarchist principles are concerned, it is also a matter of prerogative. Anarchism does neccesarily attract reactionary elements that want to lash out against society, or just be violent and aggressive for their own purpose and don't know or care to know the finer points of social philosophy. Some anarchists might consider public action to be a way to outreach support and favor to their cause, and they may condemn violent or misdirected actions as being detrimental. Others may consider any blow against society or authority to be favorable, even if it is not inline with their general goals, and they do not seek acceptance or approval from mainstream groups.

[Morning Glory]

I think that it could also be argued that if people did tend to go overboard in the absence of law, it would be because those people have been socialized to be repressed and never knew how to engage in social interactions that are not dominating and controlling. To me that is not a flaw of Anarchist theory, but an even greater appeal to it's call against the state power structure.

Calling out "human nature" is a convenient scapegoat to justify behavior that is not matching with a real academic study of biological mechanisms and environmental interaction.

[TheDeathKnight]

Might be totally true.

But the reality is that you have millions and millions of uneducated, poorly socialized, violent people out there in the world.

Take away law enforcement, and things would go to shit really fast.

[Mr Karl]

don't know if they'd go to shit but they'd change........the nice thing about uneducated, unsocialized, violent people is they do depend on law enforcement as well, I'm not sure if they'd admit it though.........

[TheDeathKnight]

Either they would go to shit, or people would create their own law-enforcement.

Seriously, if you somehow got rid of all government, all cops, and just let people
figure it out on their own, you'd just replace centralized government with individual
justice and law. And I don't trust most people to do that. I don't trust all cops,
but I trust the average person even less.

I am sure if you live in a nice part of the midwest, and all government disappeared,
people could get along ok. But if you are in Africa, or the Middle East, or bad parts
of the USA, the individuals in those areas would not be kind and helpful. They
would be doing primitive, brutal justice. People getting chopped up with machetes
and shit. I get it the ideal of Anarchy, and personal freedom. Everyone wants to
be free to just do whatever they want, with no government meddling. But the
reality is that people need some amount of guidance and control, or they get
out of hand. Africa is a great example of that. Or even the parts of Afghanistan
where the Taliban still hold power. People get killed, tortured, and treated
very badly.

[Morning Glory]

Either they would go to shit, or people would create their own law-enforcement..

I'm Ok with that.

I've never been the victim of violent crime because I don't associate with violent criminals, I don't set myself up as an easy target and above all I just don't piss people off (other than on the internet). Contrary to the above jeered claim, "when the revolution comes" and there is no more government I don't see the unemployed, dirty anarchists that eat out of trash cans and share their zines (which ones do you know?) being the first people to be taken out. In fact, I'd say that the opposite scenario is true and it's the G-men that probably are the ones that are most trying to take down those people.

[ForrestBlack]

The problem I have with the idealistic goal of no authority and no force, or psychological impression of force, and no hierarchical power structure is that it simply does not exist in nature. Even the plant kingdom is subject to a hierarchical power structure. We are not homogeneous. We are not all the same. Our needs and goals are different, and in that is inherent conflict. Any agreement on how to address that conflict is seen as 'rules' but without such an agreement, it just comes down to animalistic force and power.

I, as a thinking being, have the ability to communicate with others around me. This is great option for us to work out agreements so that we can all better reach our own goals together without having to resort to clubbing each other in the skull. These agreements are seen as a kind of rules. In a land without rules or authority or agreements, it is therefor OK to club someone in the skull because they have what you want or need. I'm all for personal freedom, but I just can not see a world where liberty doesn't have to be protected by some form of generally agreed upon authority. The whole debate to me is just about what exactly the purview of that supposedly generally agreed upon authority is.

[TheDeathKnight]

Yeah, I think one of the main goals of government and religion is to keep our animal instincts at bay. That's why there are all these rules against murder, adultery, sexual assault, stealing, etc. Governments and churches try to convince people not to do those things, because they know it's a natural temptation for people. And from what I've seen, the less educated people are, and the more lawless their location is, the more animalistic they become. So generally, an educated, lawful society, like many in Europe, can exist without much violence. If you take a country like the Netherlands, where the people are generally well-educated, and well-behaved, they can make very reasonable laws, that people don't really mind. But the bigger your country is, like the USA, or Russia, you get a lot more uneducated people, and crime, etc. It becomes more dangerous and more unlawful. So my general viewpoint is that you want to educate your populations, so they don't need so many laws, they are better behaved, and can make smart decisions about what laws are even needed. Ideally you reduce it to only laws about hurting other people. And everything else is up to you. But you can't just take away all laws, and let anyone and everyone sort things out. Because there are still a ton of people all around the world with no respect for human life, no respect for other people, and they will do all kinds of vile things to other humans if you don't have police or laws to keep them under control. The problem with cops, is they get so used to controlling the "bad" people, that they start pushing around and trying to control *everyone*. Regardless if it's really needed...

[ForrestBlack]

Well, I think the link between criminal tenancy and intelligence or education is certainly debatable. I believe the types of crimes might statistically vary, but if you eliminated all stupid people, you'd just have smarter crime. Low end crime from people with poor problem solving skills who find themselves in desperate situations tend to be more splashy and in some regards more frightening, but in the grander scheme of things, I think intelligent crimes hurt far more people. But, in order to really solve that problem, you'd have to get deep into an understanding of the true nature of crime. Where does a society draw the line on activities that adversely effect some while benefiting others? In a way, I think that is the real question Anarchists are trying to address.

[TheDeathKnight]

Totally agree that rich, smart, powerful leaders tend to kill off way more people than any individual street criminal.
Maybe more than all of them combined.

Just addressing the theoretical ability to enact "anarchy" as a way of life for all people on earth.
If that happened, I am sure both smart and dumb people would do unpleasant things to other humans.

But the bottom line is my belief that in the absence of law, a lot of people would revert
back to their more animalistic natures, and do bad things to other people. Regardless
of their level of intellect. I guess I just don't have a high opinion of most people.
Especially if you take away all law and order. Even when you have law and order,
and you allow people to do bad things, they usually jump at the chance.
Nazi Germany and Japan's **** of Nanking China come to mind...
I am sure there were plenty of smart people in both of those armies.
But when someone says, "Hey, these people are your enemies, so it doesn't
matter if you kill them or do horrible things to them." A lot of people went
right along with it, even though they were smart, moral people. When
you take away any consequences to actions, there are usually tons of
people who jump at the chance to be cruel and brutal. Even if not
everyone in those armies participated, enough did to kill millions
of people. So I would not like to tell the world, "Hey, we decided
Anarchy is the way to go. No more laws. Just work things out on
your own!" I just can't see that going very well...

[ForrestBlack]

Stupid or desperate criminals murder, educated intelligent criminals commit genocide, so yeah, I'm not down with smart people don't do crimes. Two things tend to drive crime, need and greed. People deprived of a decent education or lacking in problem solving skills tend to find themselves in situations of need. But, smart and well educated people who may have well above average problem solving skills are still susceptible to the influence of greed, whether that's driven by ideology or avarice. I'm not really sure people jump at the chance to be brutal on their own, I just think they are capable of terrible things in the name of advancing their cultural sort of team when they can abdicate responsibility.

Getting back to anarchy, the difficulty I have is that social compact has it's origins in any group situation and evolves naturally. Even in the animal kingdom, behaviors are learned through consequence. Over time, aspects of personal property and territory are both respected and strategically violated. There are still evolving social rule structures evident in the simplest of species, as well as aberrant individuals that break these rules (driven by need or greed) as well as more organized social subgroups that also break the rules on occasion.

An anarchist could really make the argument that all our rules and socially elected authority just offer a false sense of security and in the end analysis may not truly offer any more protection or security than the natural order of things. There will still be force and power and unfairness and inequality. There will still be violation and vengeance, as well as compassion and nurturing, so why do we really ultimately bother.

[TheDeathKnight]

Anarchy:

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/..._in_greate.php