Daily Anarchist Forum
January 29, 2022, 07:58:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Humans Can't Handle Anarchy  (Read 11184 times)
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« on: January 25, 2013, 08:32:40 AM »

I didn't know if this would be better here or in the Challenges subforum. Please move if necessary.

Anyway, I saw this on another forum and wanted to get your take.

Quote
The big key to this anarchy argument working is that as a species we need to acknowledge that we do not need to be lead by another to cultivate a society that is not self serving. Here is the rub; people need to be lead.....currently. It is why God was created. It is why people flood into churches every Sunday to hear someone talk about their point of view on scripture. It is why we idolize athletes, musicians, actors, etc. People have a hard time taking personal responsibility for what happens in their life. They literally get on their knees and plead with an invisible being for guidance. Until religions are done away with, and a basic understanding and acceptance of reality, we can not take that step into self-government. Otherwise, while you live in this anarchist world, a group of religious extremists are looking to destroy your society because it's not compatible with what they want and believe or what their God has "told them".

I think, at this point we have essentially maxed out our physical evolution as we are building everything around us to accommodate our current physical form. BUT, we still have room to grow mentally. It is evident in our wars over which Gods one prays to, or the hatred of others based on what they do behind closed doors. We are still wild animals. Smart wild animals, but still dumb enough to destroy ourselves over ego, power, fame, money; using all of our smart toys.

I will say I like the idea of anarchy. I do believe it is something that we should strive for as a species. I just don't think it is obtainable right now and probably not for a while.

Thoughts?
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
helio
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 571



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2013, 09:08:46 AM »

I dont do anything 'as a species'.  The questioner is falling into pattern matching on some examples that are then extrapolated to the whole set, ergo collectivism.

It is only a matter of people who do not think in collectivist terms living close enough to demonstrate the viability of a leaderless society.  A free society will work for people who desire liberty. A free society will not work for people who dont
Logged

"Fire in the head, peace in the heart."  -Samael
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2013, 09:17:27 AM »

1. I agree that the fact that a vast swath of the human species is unwilling or unable to care for themselves in their daily lives, and as such believe they need some sort of power above them, and I agree that it is problematic. I would completely disagree, however, as to the idea the abolition of religion will help to destroy this mentality.

To the contrary, the previous of century of socialism and omnipotent government has shown us that the abolition of God only leads to the placing of the next most powerful entity- in most cases the State- as the center of all knowledge and wisdom, which inevitably leads to the God of the State (or State-God), an entity believed to be capable of overstepping the mere mortal limitations of a government to bring justice and peace to the entirety of the human race.

2. I think he's confusing leaders with rulers. Anarchists aren't the enemy of hierarchy or of order- if somebody wants to listen to another's command because they believe that other is more likely to make better decisions than they are, that's their business. If somebody wants to follow the examples of their priest or of a rock star, that's fine too.

The problem is not, then, leadership per se, but of leadership that is violently enforced. The basic tenant of anarchism is that a relationship that is involuntary is much more likely to not be beneficial to both parties (here I draw a line between Rothbard and I, as I think his assumptions as to involuntary transactions always lacking mutual benefit doesn't take imperfect information into account).

So the mental leap the human race needs to take is not, of necessity, that we don't need leaders or people whom we try to mimic- the mental leap needed is the understanding that, in terms of probability, it's highly unlikely that a violently enforced relationship will be mutually beneficial, both on an individual level and in society as a whole.

3. Again, I find in his text (but not as blatant as many others) the idea that people are (in his view only currently) too wild and evil for anarchy. What I find illogical in this argument is the fact that while he uses the conclusion to believe we are unable to live voluntarily with each other, he does not apply the same logic to government.

If we assume that humans are wild, bestial or evil, then there can most certainly be no defense of a State- for, again, it's true that violence can and will likely occur in an anarchic situation, but it would mostly be on a small-scale and localized, involving few people and relatively little damage.

Not so with the State. In a Statist society the violence is consistent and endless, and assuming men are evil it will always grow more and more, leading to a eventual crippling of voluntary society and its replacement with an all-powerful State (or, as Mises said, socialism begets more socialism).


Sorry for the wall of text, I'm pretty energetic today.
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2013, 12:15:33 PM »

1. I agree that the fact that a vast swath of the human species is unwilling or unable to care for themselves in their daily lives, and as such believe they need some sort of power above them, and I agree that it is problematic. I would completely disagree, however, as to the idea the abolition of religion will help to destroy this mentality.

To the contrary, the previous of century of socialism and omnipotent government has shown us that the abolition of God only leads to the placing of the next most powerful entity- in most cases the State- as the center of all knowledge and wisdom, which inevitably leads to the God of the State (or State-God), an entity believed to be capable of overstepping the mere mortal limitations of a government to bring justice and peace to the entirety of the human race.

2. I think he's confusing leaders with rulers. Anarchists aren't the enemy of hierarchy or of order- if somebody wants to listen to another's command because they believe that other is more likely to make better decisions than they are, that's their business. If somebody wants to follow the examples of their priest or of a rock star, that's fine too.

The problem is not, then, leadership per se, but of leadership that is violently enforced. The basic tenant of anarchism is that a relationship that is involuntary is much more likely to not be beneficial to both parties (here I draw a line between Rothbard and I, as I think his assumptions as to involuntary transactions always lacking mutual benefit doesn't take imperfect information into account).

So the mental leap the human race needs to take is not, of necessity, that we don't need leaders or people whom we try to mimic- the mental leap needed is the understanding that, in terms of probability, it's highly unlikely that a violently enforced relationship will be mutually beneficial, both on an individual level and in society as a whole.

3. Again, I find in his text (but not as blatant as many others) the idea that people are (in his view only currently) too wild and evil for anarchy. What I find illogical in this argument is the fact that while he uses the conclusion to believe we are unable to live voluntarily with each other, he does not apply the same logic to government.

If we assume that humans are wild, bestial or evil, then there can most certainly be no defense of a State- for, again, it's true that violence can and will likely occur in an anarchic situation, but it would mostly be on a small-scale and localized, involving few people and relatively little damage.

Not so with the State. In a Statist society the violence is consistent and endless, and assuming men are evil it will always grow more and more, leading to a eventual crippling of voluntary society and its replacement with an all-powerful State (or, as Mises said, socialism begets more socialism).


Sorry for the wall of text, I'm pretty energetic today.

I don't think the person who was quoted by TDtW was trying to defend the State; I think what the person was saying was that people will always look for leaders and those -like us- who desire no leaders will always be in the minority; and therefore, the dumb people will always force leaders on everybody, because they themselves need leaders. 

The comment the person made about Anarchy not working, seems would be best explained by an example: lets say, that if twenty people -in a town of thirty- desire leaders, then there will be leaders.  Now you will say, well those ten people could just pick-up and leave.  That would be correct, they could just leave; however, this same scenario would be playing out everywhere, and therefore, there wouldn't be any place to go to.  Even, if a place existed, the leaders of the other places couldn't allow it anyway, lest they be willing to allow their followers to see that leaders aren't needed after all; and, therefore, put themselves out of a job and give away their power.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2013, 02:38:21 PM »

Silly argument.  It is applicable to the big three religions sure, but there are huge populations in the world that do not believe in a god.  Buddhism anyone?

An anarchist world does not need to be devoid of leaders.  It seems like this anti-anarchist quote is really aimed at the more commonly used version of anarchist which is socialism. 

As others have said, it is all about the issue of force. 
Logged

Warstring
Newbie
*
Posts: 23



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2013, 11:20:12 PM »

   The use of religion as an excuse for why people can't achieve anarchy is foolish to me. Many religions are ripe with people who have strayed from the dogma of their political leaders. As far as the religion argument it really is a matter if which personal values you can match with said scripture. The founding fathers if the United States used god as a vessel of purpose and hope. King George the third used god as an excuse to continue his "tranny". ( in parentheses because, while I am against statism I am a fan of the kings history) Jihadis, Quakers, Amish, Protestant, Thereavada Buddhism, etc. Religion is a personal experience and a mural of an individual. Religion is something best left both uncontrolled and uncontrolling
Logged

I wish to preach, not the virtue of ignoble ease, but that of the strenuous life.
Rothbardian
Radical Libertarian
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


Abolish the State!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2013, 02:44:20 PM »

I didn't know if this would be better here or in the Challenges subforum. Please move if necessary.

Anyway, I saw this on another forum and wanted to get your take.

Quote
The big key to this anarchy argument working is that as a species we need to acknowledge that we do not need to be lead by another to cultivate a society that is not self serving. Here is the rub; people need to be lead.....currently. It is why God was created. It is why people flood into churches every Sunday to hear someone talk about their point of view on scripture. It is why we idolize athletes, musicians, actors, etc. People have a hard time taking personal responsibility for what happens in their life. They literally get on their knees and plead with an invisible being for guidance. Until religions are done away with, and a basic understanding and acceptance of reality, we can not take that step into self-government. Otherwise, while you live in this anarchist world, a group of religious extremists are looking to destroy your society because it's not compatible with what they want and believe or what their God has "told them".

I think, at this point we have essentially maxed out our physical evolution as we are building everything around us to accommodate our current physical form. BUT, we still have room to grow mentally. It is evident in our wars over which Gods one prays to, or the hatred of others based on what they do behind closed doors. We are still wild animals. Smart wild animals, but still dumb enough to destroy ourselves over ego, power, fame, money; using all of our smart toys.

I will say I like the idea of anarchy. I do believe it is something that we should strive for as a species. I just don't think it is obtainable right now and probably not for a while.

Thoughts?
First off, right wing anarchists are not against leadership or authority (in general). So the premise is moot.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 02:46:28 PM by Rothbardian » Logged

ff42
Full Member
***
Posts: 186


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2013, 05:57:22 PM »

It seems to me that as long as children are conditioned (brainwashed, taught, beat) to be subservient by their parents, teachers (both public and private), religious leaders, peers and siblings they will grow up to crave (depend on?) leadership and won't know how (generally) to know if that leadership is voluntary or violent.  I think it is the case of Stockholm Syndrome, writ large.

Logged
Kitk34
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2013, 06:53:48 PM »

I came across that post also, but had not replied yet. Now I am running out of time on here so I will attempt my best to keep it brief.

If I am repeating anything anyone else has already said I appologize. I have accepted the assertion by Larken Rose that "Anarchy is Reality," because it literally means 'without ruler' in the root of the word. The rest has to do with how to peacefully co-exist amongst each other. It starts with the Individual and extends to those close him/her. Family is the extension from a man and a woman agreeing to such an arrangement.  As ff42 pointed out, and I cannot disagree, if a person only knows how to obey someone else's orders how can they know the difference between right or wrong and what that entails

I have to go but will add to this later.

Kitk34
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 29, 2013, 02:00:24 PM »

I didn't know if this would be better here or in the Challenges subforum. Please move if necessary.

Anyway, I saw this on another forum and wanted to get your take.

Quote
The big key to this anarchy argument working is that as a species we need to acknowledge that we do not need to be lead by another to cultivate a society that is not self serving. Here is the rub; people need to be lead.....currently. It is why God was created. It is why people flood into churches every Sunday to hear someone talk about their point of view on scripture. It is why we idolize athletes, musicians, actors, etc. People have a hard time taking personal responsibility for what happens in their life. They literally get on their knees and plead with an invisible being for guidance. Until religions are done away with, and a basic understanding and acceptance of reality, we can not take that step into self-government. Otherwise, while you live in this anarchist world, a group of religious extremists are looking to destroy your society because it's not compatible with what they want and believe or what their God has "told them".

I think, at this point we have essentially maxed out our physical evolution as we are building everything around us to accommodate our current physical form. BUT, we still have room to grow mentally. It is evident in our wars over which Gods one prays to, or the hatred of others based on what they do behind closed doors. We are still wild animals. Smart wild animals, but still dumb enough to destroy ourselves over ego, power, fame, money; using all of our smart toys.

I will say I like the idea of anarchy. I do believe it is something that we should strive for as a species. I just don't think it is obtainable right now and probably not for a while.

Thoughts?

The simple answer is, if people need to be led, that is, if ALL people need to be led, then where are you going to find people to do the leading???

The long answer is question this guy's unwarranted assumptions.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Tear-Down-the-Wall
Mr. Edgar Friendly
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


Mother should I trust the government?


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2013, 02:12:50 PM »

I didn't know if this would be better here or in the Challenges subforum. Please move if necessary.

Anyway, I saw this on another forum and wanted to get your take.

Quote
The big key to this anarchy argument working is that as a species we need to acknowledge that we do not need to be lead by another to cultivate a society that is not self serving. Here is the rub; people need to be lead.....currently. It is why God was created. It is why people flood into churches every Sunday to hear someone talk about their point of view on scripture. It is why we idolize athletes, musicians, actors, etc. People have a hard time taking personal responsibility for what happens in their life. They literally get on their knees and plead with an invisible being for guidance. Until religions are done away with, and a basic understanding and acceptance of reality, we can not take that step into self-government. Otherwise, while you live in this anarchist world, a group of religious extremists are looking to destroy your society because it's not compatible with what they want and believe or what their God has "told them".

I think, at this point we have essentially maxed out our physical evolution as we are building everything around us to accommodate our current physical form. BUT, we still have room to grow mentally. It is evident in our wars over which Gods one prays to, or the hatred of others based on what they do behind closed doors. We are still wild animals. Smart wild animals, but still dumb enough to destroy ourselves over ego, power, fame, money; using all of our smart toys.

I will say I like the idea of anarchy. I do believe it is something that we should strive for as a species. I just don't think it is obtainable right now and probably not for a while.

Thoughts?

The simple answer is, if people need to be led, that is, if ALL people need to be led, then where are you going to find people to do the leading???

The long answer is question this guy's unwarranted assumptions.


Good answer!
Logged

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back.

You take the blue pill- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill- you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Hanzo
Full Member
***
Posts: 241


Deprived Ninja


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2013, 07:11:24 PM »

Humans can't handle government more:







Logged

What if it was a gift?
Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2013, 07:58:24 PM »

Humans can't handle anarchy?

I kind of agree with this.   If we could push a button and eliminate the government, we would have a new government before 24hrs was up.   We'd probably have several smaller governments, some of which might be better than what we've got now... but that's beside the point.   The point is that dependence on government (and the idea of government itself) must be eliminated from a significant portion of the population.   Until that happens, then yes... "we" as a species (or a population on a particular continent) are not ready for anarchy.     The real battle is for the minds of the people.   

But I'll ask what, to me, is an obvious question:

Does the fact that 98% of my neighbors aren't "ready for anarchy" somehow give them the right to seize my property and tell me what to do under penalty of death?     Please explain how their lack of "readiness" grants them that right?

It doesn't.

The "slow" members of the class don't have special rights, authority or powers over the fast learners.

Not being able to handle anarchy doesn't give anyone the right to FORCE government on people who think they ARE ready (regardless of whether they actually are "ready" or not).


Logged



State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2013, 09:56:36 PM »

Humans can't handle government more:









I'm not sure if you're serious based on the last one. Or is there a message there I'm not getting?
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2013, 08:53:25 AM »

Humans can't handle anarchy?

I kind of agree with this.   If we could push a button and eliminate the government, we would have a new government before 24hrs was up.   We'd probably have several smaller governments, some of which might be better than what we've got now... but that's beside the point.   The point is that dependence on government (and the idea of government itself) must be eliminated from a significant portion of the population.   Until that happens, then yes... "we" as a species (or a population on a particular continent) are not ready for anarchy.     The real battle is for the minds of the people.   

But I'll ask what, to me, is an obvious question:

Does the fact that 98% of my neighbors aren't "ready for anarchy" somehow give them the right to seize my property and tell me what to do under penalty of death?     Please explain how their lack of "readiness" grants them that right?

It doesn't.

The "slow" members of the class don't have special rights, authority or powers over the fast learners.

Not being able to handle anarchy doesn't give anyone the right to FORCE government on people who think they ARE ready (regardless of whether they actually are "ready" or not).




Unfortunately what you are calling rights are irrelevant.  A carjacker doesn't have a right to your car, but that isn't going to stop him from taking it. 
Logged

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!