Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > Anarchy Discussion

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Anarchy Discussion

TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 9, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Sorla:
 
I have to admit, I just flat out disagree with you at this point, no offense of course, I still respect your opinion and all that.
 
I disagree that everybody will think they are equal, religion exists, personal opinion of others exists, etc.  People aren't perfect.  
 
I highly doubt your portrayals of ancient Irish civilization (or other ancient semi-anarchist societies) is not exaggerated.  If they were so effective, why did they get wiped out?  
 
Your point about the invading Christians is well said, despite their imperfections according to you, they were still more powerful than the anarchist society and were defeated.  
 
I think you are mistaking "anarchy" with "honor".  If an honor system were part of our culture we would have all the benefits of anarchy without any of the downfalls.  
 
How would a mass government not set a standard of teamwork?  See: Nationalism, plenty of teamwork, problem is that everyone is divided against other groups. 
 
How about this, consider the polar opposite of anarchy, what if everyone were part of one huge government?  The upsides would be: no more massive-scale war, people who are minorities in one country are now connected with the others of there ethnicity.  Unified currency and economy means much less complication.  
 
The downsidedes would be that corruption and abuse of the system would have to be closely monitored.  I'd say some kind of network of internal surveillance and separation of power so that no one person or party has all of the power.  Think America's separation of powers and bicameral legislation except even more separated.  
 
I really think that some kind of cultural honor system like in feudal Japan would solve all of your issues with governments.  I would like one myself actually.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm

I agree, people are imperfect, but that only means that we would be better off if no one was given power instead of only a select few being given power. If it's to big of a responsibility for a normal person, it's to big of a responsibility for a politician. People are so used to governments and not having to make decisions for themselves that they allow themselves to be controlled and oppressed without even realizing it. If we lived in an anarchy, people would learn independence and self reliance from an early age, just like the people of our society learn how to be sheep from an early age. If everyone was an independent thinker, who could determine solutions and causes of problems on their own, we probably wouldn't even accept a government to begin with. Early humans lived in groups as small as a pair and as large as a hundred or so. These people are what modern day humans would call uncivilized, but if they were so barbaric, how did they manage to maintain a peaceful anarchy for a few thousand years? Well that is because there is no real purpose to a government. Humans can govern themselves fine, it's the people that want to take advantage of others that appreciate governments. They want an excuse to control everyone else, so kingdoms were created. That escalated until today, where the government thinks they have the right to moderate our personal freedoms. Governments in theory are supposed to work for the people. How come the people never get a say in important matters? How come so many things are hidden from us? If you can't trust the human race, you can't trust a group of humans with an entire population. Animals have lived for BILLIONS of years without a government, what makes humans different? I believe it's cause humans think they are better then everyone else and think they don't fall into the category of animal. But we are animals, and we can function perfectly fine without a government, we have before. As for the Irish, they were wiped out because they were severely outnumbered by the Roman empire. I read an article on the Christian invasion that put the ratio of Celtic warriors to Roman soldiers at something crazy like 1:70. And they didn't get wiped out, they fought so hard and so ferociously that they were first exiled to Ireland, and after that they were kept as slaves. The Celtics of ancient times are now the lower classes of Ireland. So if I were to tell you that people were invading our home, and that you had to help work together and defeat the enemy, would you pick up a gun? Most humans today would never dream of dying for their country, or their people. I don't get it. I believe that having a government is just an excuse to not take responsibility and let other people take care of all our problems. Supporting a government is the easy and cowardly way out. My main problem with authority is that they have no right to tell me what to do as long as I'm not hurting anyone, but they do, constantly. There are laws about everything under the sun. I feel sorry for today's humans. They will never understand what it really feels like to live. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 11, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Sorla:
 
Your idealistic view of animals and primitive civilizations is highly exaggerated.  Animals have no sense of individual right, there is no such thing as "r.ape" in the minds of animals, just natural selection.
 
There's no such as thing as "murder" to animals, just dominance, territory, food, survival.  
 
You forget that in an ideal democratic-republic, it's not a single person making all the decisions, it's a politician being elected to represent the people.  If the people don't like that politician, they elect a new one.  Simple as that.  
 
In an anarchist society the people that want to take advantage of others wouldn't just go away, they would still win.  Just with more unrestricted violence.  
 
As for why primitive anarchies were so successful and peaceful, they werent.  
 
"Peaceful", I suppose is subjective.  But trust me, violence and r.ape and murder were just as common, if not more.  If you don't believe that then you give me a source or some evidence.  
 
There is a purpose to a government, read some Locke or Rousseau, heck, read some Voltaire.  The purpose is that I have a natural right to keep my food and you have a natural right to steal my food, and vice versa.  The only way those rights can co-exist is if we both agree to give up the right to steal each others food.  
 
If you say "well if someone is going to steal or harm he should be exiled from society", who's going to decide whether he actually did it?  Who's going to decide what the punishment is?  Who's going to decide why that's wrong?  Read Lord of the FliesTo Kill A Mocking BirdOf Mice and MenThe Crucible, and any number of other books that deal with similar inherent problems of justice and men.  You'll see a re-occuring pattern, people take advantage of others, people abuse the system, people do bad things.  
 
That's a fact of life, unless you're promoting eugenics, that's a whole 'nother conversation though.  
 
Think about it this way:  
 
If there's a system to abuse, it makes it that much harder.  If there's not a system to abuse, it makes it that much easier.  
 
People are gonna do it anyways. 
 
You also neglected to address several of my key points including the counter-thesis about what would happen if there was one large government, and whether or not an "honor" system would solve a lot of the problems you mention.  
 
Thanks!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
TeenInk.Moderator replied...
Feb. 11, 2013 at 2:29 pm

P.S.:
 
Here's an excellent article on Anarchism and the moral implications of it.  
 
ht tp://mol.redbarn.o rg/objectivism/writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Feb. 12, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Breece: I would advise you to read Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Its a full book, but just read chapter 2. The book is well worth a read, if nothing else as a way to expand your horizons
 
htt p://libcom.o rg/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Feb. 12, 2013 at 7:44 pm

some links:
 
htt p://libcom.or g/library/state-introduction
 
h ttp://libcom.o rg/library/capitalism-introduction
 
h ttp://libcom.or g/library/work-introduction
 
ht tp://libcom.o rg/history/1936-1939-the-spanish-civil-war-and-revolution
 
htt p://libcom.o rg/history/1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrow replied...
Feb. 14, 2013 at 9:50 am

Sorry Breece, I'll get back to you on this, just been really busy the last few days. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 14, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Junie: No probs, looking forward to it :)
 
Human:
 
Sigh, you have no idea how much stuff I've been recommended to read by people on TI -_-  I have to read the Qu'ran, a bunch of Seventh Day Adventist books, a bunch of Christian apologetics, and now a bunch of anarchist related literature.  :P  
 
I'll get to it eventually I suppose, have you ever ready Lord of the Flies or the The Crucible by any chance?  Fantastic books, you should read 'em yourself if you haven't :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Feb. 15, 2013 at 11:39 pm

LOTF yes. Crucible no

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Feb. 16, 2013 at 6:47 pm

*sniff* you're always so terse and brief.  You couldn't spare a few more minutes to fill your response with arbitrary small talk? :( 
 
I think you've mentioned some kind of technological restriction you had like that you had to type everything akwardly in a word processor before posting it on TI or something.  I don't know, maybe I'm thinking of something else.  
 
I think it's just your personality though, you just have this terseness about you for some reason.  
 
ANYWAYS, if you've read LOTF you should have at least some insight into the kind of things I think an anarchist society would lead to.  I realize it's fiction but I think it's pretty indicative of the real problems that would arise in an anarchist society.  
 
Crucible doesn't take place in a real anarchist society per say, but it takes place in such an isolated area and in such a manner that it parallels alot of anarchistic qualities.  
 
Anywho, y'know now that I think about it Sorla kind of has some terseness too.  
 
I don't think you anarchists are much for small talk.  MAYBE THAT'S THE TRUE AGENDA.
 
What if all anarchists are actually just tired of meaningless pleasantries and are conspiring to bring down the very societies from WHICH THEY CAME.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JunieSparrow replied...
Feb. 17, 2013 at 8:55 pm

Please excuse me if my arbitrary small talk is a little lacking.  I got about an hour of sleep last night, but I'll try to satisfy your desire for random observations. 
 
You're changed your nick.  The sky has stars.  My room is a mess.  Lord of the Flies is about a bunch of kids whose problems come from the establishment of a government. 
 
Now I know you're going to say adults act the same way and always try to establish leaders etc. etc.  Well, maybe, maybe not.  Can you really imagine that mature adults would be bickering about who has to carry water while they're all trying to survive?  The dance/hunt, really? 
 
I'm not saying conflict wouldn't occur, I'm saying that people in a desperate situation would pull together to survive.  Agree or disagree as you please. 
 
Again, the reason I say anarchy is moral is that all governments will be made up of human beings.  If we can't deal with the crimes committed by evil individuals in our communities, how will we be able to deal with the crimes committed by large evil groups? 
 
In any case, I've now read LOTF. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
human6 replied...
Feb. 17, 2013 at 9:23 pm

All societies have a baseline form of communism (as in from each to each.) That means, for example, when I ask for a cig, I can get one, or when my house burns down people will help me. If we were purely the rational calculators of Adam Smith we would be dead, because every time a sabertooth tiger came to eat us, we'd be saying "how much will you pay me to help you kill it." Communism is just the most efficient way to organize society. Its also what we revert to in disasters. Like Sandy, everyone became equal and helped eachother without exchanger for a few days.
 
Capitalism is just a way to organize communism, I think it is very bad way.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Eceerb9 replied...
Feb. 18, 2013 at 12:43 pm

JunieSparrow:
 
I never thought of you as lacking in small talk actually...  now I feel hurt... *cries*
 
Define to me a "desperate situation".  There are hundreds of thousands of children starving to death every day, does that qualify as a "desperate situation"?  
 
The problem is that there are physical restrictions on populations, it's how ecosystems work.  
 
There will always be people starving, people with less than others, people being left to die.  It is literally a part of life.  The only possible way of solving these problems are through technological advance, or divine intervention.  
 
Personally I'm more counting on the 1st of those. Which is one of the reasons I think organized gov't is beneficial, it fosters technological advancement (if done correctly) more than an Anarchist society would.  
 
I don't necessarily disagree that Anarchy is moral in an ideal world, (although I do doubt it...), but I disagree that it is a moral or effective system in this world.
 
Human:
 
I kind of agree with that sentiment actually.  Every government does have a baseline of communism.  
 
In my opinion a socialistic-capitalist society would be the most effective way to organize the economy and society.  
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback