Is anarchism chaos? How is the chaos caused by anarchism different from the chaos found in any other society? Who here agrees with the philosophy of anarchism? Who doesn't? Why? Please use good arguments not just " ooh cause its stupid and we need government?

not at all because the poeple of all of these Imperial countries are too used to having an established order they wouldnt be used to the radical change

Dreamshift wrote:We must have some system of governement, even if that means with no easily identified leaders or decision makers. I state this beacause we must have protection from people who seek to dominate others, or threats from forgien powers.\

I would say that an anarchist's dream is to have the entire world in a state of anarchy so that there would be no foreign powers, but if that is not possible, then at least we would ask that other nations do not invade our Utopia, or we would kill them if they tried.

Dewey wrote:Dreamshift said: “We don't need some kind of leader/king/president, but a way to make sure we all agree on how we want to co-exist,”

The nearest we can come to a “way to make sure we all agree” is majority voting, is it not? If so, we’re talking about democracies, and if we agree that pure democracies (voting every decision and move) are impracticable, we must have representatives to coordinate and direct the operations so as to achieve our chosen objectives, must we not? These representatives deserve to be called leaders, do they not?

After carefully framing the above questions, I got that all-too-familiar feeling of a nitpicker. I generally agree with your ideas in this and the other threads of this forum. Good luck with the paper!

Maybe we shouldn't coexist maybe if we disagree with each other we should just isolate ourselves from the majority and live in blissful loneliness

Celebration2000 wrote:How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?

Theft - Well, either (a) you could murder who ever stole from you and fear no retribution from the police, or (b) you could just ask for your property back nicely - there is still such a thing as kindness by the way. or (c) you could hold an investigation and find out who did it and psychologically terrorize them through silent treatment and psychological exile until they feel so lonely that they are coerced into giving back the property.

I think the idea of a mass community murder would deter people from theft/extortion/etc.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:REALLY GUYS???

Anarchism [Def]: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

You can't use anarchy as a guiding principle in life if its philosophy is to not adhere to a principle.

It's really, very simple.

Oh, and what the last poster is talking about, I think, sounds more like Libertarianism.

That's not what anarchy means. Maybe the dictionary says so, but true anarchy is simply the freedom to do what you feel is best to be done. Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals. Anarchy is the absence of law, a constitution, a capital, bureaucracy, etc. Not a lack of order. By nature, animals are orderly creatures and if we woke up tomorrow and the government just quit, then we would still have our own order that we would establish within ourselves.

Belinda wrote:

Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals.

Within a system of anarchy who sets the guide lines and morals for the child?

Parents set the guidelines for their children in every society. No matter what form of government is instated, the parents are the parents. It has been that way forever and will (hopefully) be that way no matter what form of government exists...or doesn't.

It would be the same in an anarchical society.

Belinda wrote:

Parents set the guidelines for their children in every society. No matter what form of government is instated, the parents are the parents. It has been that way forever and will (hopefully) be that way no matter what form of government exists...or doesn't.

Who sets the morals and guidelines for parents?Are all parents moral parents?

Does any other form of government ensure that parents are moral? The parents get their morals from their parents, and so on. No form of government could prevent bad parents from happening, or could protect children from bad influences.

I can see from your name and photograph that arguing with you will....well, let's just hope that I greatly underestimated your flexibility on this subject.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:What principles and codes? What personal guidelines? The true purpose of government is to protect the right to freedom. You argue that anarchy would be freedom, but freedom to do what?

The principles and codes would be the same personal principles and codes that you have now; let me help this old woman cross the busy intersection, let me give that stray cat some food and water, and even let me scold my daughter for her misbehavior. Any principle and code that you have now would still exist. Think about it: How many of your personal values come from existent laws? How many of them aren't obvious enough to be covered by those laws?

And as of right now, the purpose of government is to make money. Government has long since lost it's appeal as a career of integrity. Now it is more of an outlet for ego. And why should a someone else tell me how to act? Why should someone else tell me how treat myself? The answer is probably to protect other people, isn't that a selfish stance to take? Then again, so is mine. But with the situation we have now, the majority wins whether it is right or not.

If there were no law, people would be free to strip others of their freedoms (kill, rape, pillage, steal, etc.), which is the reason governments were created in the first place.

What makes you think that people aren't free to do that now? Do you really think that anyone who has considered rape or murder has been deferred by the possibility of its consequences? And what do you call that percentage of your paycheck that is taken out every week (or two) to build schools and road. IS is not stealing even if the money is going toward benefiting society? In that case, should I be able to steal a new car to better my chances of surviving a car accident? Or steal a farmer's crops to better my offspring's chances of survival? And governments were probably first created when man saw how easy it is for one to usurp power from those around him. All you have to do is put yourself in charge, pull all the strings, and kiss someone's baby to give the public a sense of security.

FOR ANARCHY TO WORK, PEOPLE MUST AGREE TO CERTAIN PRINCIPLES AND CODES. PRINCIPLES AND CODES ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS LAWS. LAWS ARE CREATED BY GENERAL CONSENSOUS (WHICH WE ALSO REFER TO AS THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS).

People don't have to agree. If anarchy is "established" (sort of a paradox, huh?) then people will follow along either by choice or by coercion. How excited were the Native Americans when the Europeans came over ad decided to abolish the Native Americans's form of government? Probably not too excited, but it happened anyway. Another example of how government was established to remove people's liberties, not uphold them. And not all laws are created by general consensus. If you want to think properly, then don't think like an American. Think like a human.

If you don't have a collection of individuals agreeing on principles that prohibit the infringement of basic rights (ie. life, liberty, and property) then the "natural order" you speak of will revert to evolutionary principles of dominance.

Yes, but only is the human population stays at its current level. At this rate, anarchy would destroy us all, and the chaos you speak of would happen. There is no doubt in my mind about that. However, if our population were reduced to about 15-20 percent of it's current number, then it would be much more plausible, as long as we don't have people who think that government NEEDS to be established to create order.

You said that animals have a natural order, and you're right. It revolves around survival. Survival is a product of competition. In nature, competition almost always creates A dominant figure/faction. Dominance is a form of leadership. When left to its own ends, nature will establish a leader.

Thank you. But dominance is not a form a leadership. Not necessarily. Nature will establish a leader, when it does, then I will acknowledge the leader that nature provided. I will not, however, be subjected to the rules of a man or a woman who I have never seen and who has no clue who I am, but for some reason seems to think to know what's the best thing for me to do just so that s/he can sleep soundly at night.

Anarchy cannot exist.

It can. It does.

You may define it any way you would like, but if you have principles, somebody must establish and protect them. Since they cannot be commonplace, only the individual can protect them. Assuming there is ONE member of a population who's principles are to not regard another's principles as valid, one will eventually dominate/destroy another.

It is most likely that the "everyone else" will destroy the "one." The system you describe is not one of anarchy, but of governing. Last time I checked, it would be illegal for me to distribute material that advocates the overthrow of the government (even though the constitution says I can), so if I were to do so, I would be dominated. I would be sent away or deported or I might just disappear into Guadalajara. In my absence would come harmony as the remaining people would all have the same ideas. Like you said, it's all about competition and survival. Only fittest, in this case, ideologies survive.

If you define anarchy as having no "common principles", an anarchist society would never be able to agree to establish itself.

I don't. I define anarchy as being able to live by the rules that you think are best suited for you. Those rules change for each person. Anarchy is a system in which no one can be oppressed who doesn't want to. What could the slaves have done in the 1800s to prevent their own enslavement. They certainly couldn't vote for an abolitionist president or governor. They couldn't even escape because that would have been illegal. In a state of anarchy, the only chains on human beings would be those that occur naturally (i.e. gravity.).

Please tell me what point I'm missing, because this seems extremely simple to me.

Different minds=different rules. We are not one mind.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:ANARCHY EXCLUDES MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ANY PHILOSOPHY, AND ON ANY SET OF PRINCIPLES! END OF STORY!

Never has that been the definition of anarchy. Anarchy is not the exclusion of mutual agreement. It fact, it requires it, and propagates it. As you said, anarchy can ONLY work with mutual agreement. Like Belinda said, Utopia! That is the key. Anarchy can only exist well when people agree that all life should be respected and that each person's opinion is different. Democracy embraces the idea that your idea will be welcome as long as your not a terrorist, a communist, a foreigner, a child, an elderly person, obese, mentally disabled, or from Cuba! If you fit into the industrial mold, then you have the right to vote. Other than that, you'll have to wait hundreds of years and suffer until you demand that right. In anarchy, your right would already be assumed. In anarchy, we would all be free.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:What is the state comprised of? From where does it derive its evil?

A group of people who enforce a certain standard of thought and morality. It derives its evil from the idea that only its form of morality is correct. If a senator came to work one day and said, "You know what? Terrorists, although they have done some bad things, are just people trying to express an opinion, and when you think about it, we're as much of the terrorists as they are," he would probably not be reelected even though he spoke the truth. I don't like using the word evil to refer to government. It's not evil, it's just corrupt and in most places, unnecessary.

I am very confused to wonder how Anarchists can conceive that individuals are good, but individuals together are bad, when individuals have only survived the test of time BECAUSE they have banded together.

Yes, but in smaller groups of similar ideologies. I'm all for the "government" of family. In fact, that is what I would prefer. I would survive because my tribe is looking out for me, and me for them.

So you're willing to depend on the "inate morality of a people free to do anything" ... but disavow government, which is a collection of people, who chose of free will, to join together to do something?

Supreme Court Justice, The Dred Scott Case, "The black man has no rights which the white man is bound to respect."

This is what they, in 1857, by free will, chose to join together to do something: take the rights of someone else.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
Really. Where?

I am an anarchist. If I don't always express in practice, then at least in my mind. And there are others like me. Plus, anarchy exists wherever someone thinks for his or herself.

And here is where I think the break-down is occuring. I think your definition of anarchy is really just a misconception. This is really a definition of libertarianism.

not quite. I am very familiar with the ideas of Libertarianism, but they still imply government up to the state level. Now, although I prefer state to federal government, it still has its problem. And as you mention yes, I would be okay with a community as a governing body, however, the government should not have absolute power. Absolute power lies in the people. If the community wants to get together for a bake sale to build a new playground, that's fine. But if they want to tell me how tall the grass in my front yard can grow, or where I can place my trash cans, or even where I can park, that's when the problems arise.

My contention is that anarchy is an ill-defined philosophy. Its precepts are covered subtantially in other, more well-developed theories, and its conclusions are ultimately vague.

Yes, it can be quite vague and there is a lot of equivocation about its true meaning, but it is, as you said, a philosophy.

If we were to discard all labels and names for what we're talking about, I think we could probably come to *some* kind of resolution on what we think would be a workable form of society.

Yes, we could. I am an anarchist, but I also understand that not everyone else is. I wouldn't want to force my ideals onto someone else like that.

“You can be free only if I am free.”

whitetrshsoldier wrote:One quick point I thought about ...

The community can act as a governing body, right? My question is, how do they decide to get together for this bake sale? Who determines the manner in which they may set up? Who sets the guidelines for what's appropriate and what isn't?

Well, I guess that my bake sale has become an allegory! If they wanted to organize a bake-sale, they would call up some friends and neighbors, find out who can bake or who has any fun recipes to share, and then make them. They could collectively decide on a spot, or they might all have a community center to sell at. Anyone can bring anything as long as it's a baked-good, otherwise it ceases to be a bake-sale, and people sell! If someone brings hash-brownies, or poison cupcakes, then they risk ruining the community's trust in future bake-sales.

Here's the problem. Who enforces those rules?

We do. Anarchy, quite unlike democracy, is the true rule by the people. If someone infringes on your rights, then you may do what you are capable of or what you feel is necessary. Hopefully you will be educated enough to make a proactive decision and try to work something out or persuade someone to do stop infringing upon your rights, but that may not always happen.

The struggle for liberty requires not only a fight against tyranny in practice, but also against tyranny in waiting.

That's where education comes in.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:So if somebody infringes upon my right, say by coming up and taking my neighbor's baked goods (and profits) by gunpoint, may I reciprocate? What if he does it with arms that are greater than mine (say, automatic weapons with armor piercings rounds). This may be exaggerating, but it has happened, and does happen (see Mexico). What do you do in a situation like this?

Yes, of course you may reciprocate. And if that person has a larger weapon than you, then you might think twice before reciprocating, but that's up to you. However, hopefully, a society would be built up enough on the values of education and learning, as well as respect for one another. In such a world, guns wouldn't even exist. Yes, guns protect us, but at the expense of someone else's life. We must first learn how to respect all life before we can live in an anarchic Utopia.

My point is that tyranny will rear its evil head at some point, and somebody will need to be there to fight it. The individual will not always be capable of defending him/herself against all enemies. This is where you need a common, well-armed collective force. The only true reason for government.

Tyranny comes from a craving for power, which comes from an overactive ego. If, from a young age, we are taught to respect one another and value each other's contribution to the world, then there would be no craving for power. The truly educated know that power is a direct line to self-destruction. If we all learn this and are disciplined by these principles, then we wouldn't need all of the governing we have now. And discipline doesn't mean harsh style indoctrination. Think of it more like how a martial artist may discipline him/herself or how Siddhartha or Jesus of Nazareth disciplined themselves.

whitetrshsoldier wrote:So what you're saying is all we have to do is indoctrinate children from birth to deny their primal instinct for dominance?

That's what parents do when they scold children for screaming or throwing things. That's what society does when its schools require vaccinations against natural pathogens. That is what the world does when it establishes laws against murder, thievery, arson, and rape. Everything, whether wholly or partially, in the history of our modern societies is contrary to our "nature." So to argue that we should not indoctrinate children may make my original argument a fallacy, but it also contradicts your ideal government, one in which personal property rights cannot be revoked. We are all indoctrinated, why do you think we all agree that 2 + 2 = 4?

Sounds pretty simple.

It is. It's called education (no sarcasm).

You're telling me that in order to develop a society capable of sustaining anarchism, you would REQUIRE the violation the very principle you consider elementary to your philosophy by brainwashing children.

Isn't it odd that in our language brainwashing has such a negative connotation. It is imply the combination of two words: brain, and washing. Both of which, by themselves, have such strong connection to the ideas of science and good hygiene. Yet, it seems, when they are combined they become a completely new word void of any goodness and ripe with malicious intentions. Odd. Anyway, brainwashing happens........any animal with a brain is brainwashed. Brainwashing is simply teaching. If an animal were to grow up in a complete isolated state, it would act according only to the faculties of its brain. Nothing else would influence it not even, for the sake of my hypothetical situation, it's isolation. It would follow the pattern that its brain has been programmed to follow. When other factors are introduced, its brain would change. It would learn that fire burns, and its brain would tell it to stay away. It would learn that the food on the left side is better than the food on the right side, or that flight works better on sunny days than on cold days. These interactions with the environment would, quite literally, change its brain. This is due to brain plasticity, the ability of the brain to change in certain situation. For example, a child born of pure Korean ancestry brought up in isolation would have certain attributes that make him/her more susceptible to aspects of Korean "survival." This being a very jagged word, I mean that his/her vocal cords would have an affinity for speaking Korean, and possibly his/her body shape would be better suited for Korean terrain. However, that child could, with all physical aspects described, be raised in Brazil. S/he would grow up as a Brazilian: his/her vocal cords would adapt to changes in language, his/her body might develop a certain way, etc. What I am saying is that the brain changes. Whether it be going from speaking Portuguese when your brain wants to speak Korean, or from sitting politely in church in a nice white suit or dress when you really want to run outside, hunt, and kill. This is brainwashing. To argue that brainwashing is something evil in nature is, although possible, too lofty of a subject to instantly cast into the realm of untouchable subject in philosophy.

Which brings us back to the point that anarchy is self-defeating in nature, and will never exist.

Anarchy is not a self-defeating philosophy. Anarchy may literally mean no rule or no government, but its true philosophy lies more in the idea that no one person rules, or even one group of people. There will always be laws from which no human can escape. If you jump, you will fall back to Earth. If you touch a hot stove-top, you will be burned. If you fly through a windshield at 65 miles per hour, your body will continue to travel, unstopped at 65 miles per hour until acted upon by another force. Law in itself is the essence of nature. Without law, nature would not be. If the sunlight didn't give the grass the energy to produce sugar from which the mouse would eat from which the eagle would eat so that when the eagle died it would fall to the ground, decay, and turn into organic ingredients that would mix with more sunlight and create more sugar, then the world would cease. Without law, the planet would not even turn on its axis. However, anarchy is a society free from the laws of man, not of God. Anarchy means being able to do as you wish to whomever you wish to do it to, the only reprisal being your timely and eventual death. If you want to raise your children on the foundation that 2 + 2 = 4, then you are free to do it. If you want to shoot up and rob a bake sale, then you are free to do it, if you want to build an atomic bomb and blow up another part of the world, then you can do it. But know, that every other organism on the planet from a cell to a blue whale has the same right as you to do the same exact thing. With death as a constant, the anarchist's world moves freely. Maybe not always in utopia, maybe not always without pain or suffering, but freely.

A perfect society would cease to advance, as there is no point improving on utopia.

Yes, precisely. Utopia is perfection. It would be impossible to improve on it.