- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,366
Define government. Unless you're writing down laws that everyone must follow, I don't consider it government.
Rules for a specific guild are not laws that everyone must follow.
Government: A tool of which its purpose is to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will: Authority that does so.
You cannot govern a group without having a government, maybe, but groups easily exist without a ruler.
That is what we basically call a democracy. (majority rule)
Herd instinct == swarm mechanics. While bees and other swarming insects have strict hierarchies, a herd of buffalo has no leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bison
"During the breeding season, dominant bulls maintain a small harem of females for mating. Individual bulls "tend" cows until allowed to mate, by following them around and chasing away rival males. The tending bull will shield the female's vision with his body so she will not see any other challenging males. A challenging bull may bellow or roar to get a female's attention and the tending bull has to bellow/roar back. The most dominant bulls mate in the first 2-3 weeks of the season. More subordinate bulls will mate with any remaining estrous cow that has not mated yet."
Alpha male mentality.
"Bison herds have dominance hierarchies that exist for both males and females. A bison's dominance is related to its birth date. Bison that are born earlier in the breeding season are more likely to be larger and more dominant as adults. Thus bison are able to pass on their dominance to their offspring as dominant bison breed earlier in the season. In addition to dominance, the older bison of a generation also have a higher fertility rate than the younger ones."
Dominance.
Looks like a government to me!
When a predator shows up, the ones that see it run away, and the rest of the herd see them running and starts running themselves. I'm not sure any one buffalo could start a stampede, but if you get a dozen or so of your buffalo friends, you could probably start a stampede on false premises.
Two birds.
Unless you are saying you can't have civilization without a leader, you are abusing the word. Anarchy doesn't mean, "No working together," it means, "No ruler."
Anarchy means: "No government" according to the definition of today.
Anarchy;
–noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy
It seems to me that "No leader" is not an anarchy, but is instead a different sort of government, the most similar form of government I can think of in that regard is a "Republic":
Republic;
–noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
In essence; you may have been using the wrong term for your ideal this whole time.
Which leads into the following:
Once again, define government. I suspect you may be stretching the word.
It may be that you simply are using the wrong term altogether.
Government is the tool created to limit, and punish the abuse of free-will, it is raised up in groups by sheer inevitable instinct.
You cannot be a group, if you don't agree on something, or have similar interests or goals. You can't enact those goals if you don't make the same similar decisions, or make the same decisions, you can't be a group unless you move forward towards a specific action, or goal as determined by the group, there are only two root ways in which these group decisions are made: Democratic form, or Alpha.
Two birds.
Hence: Civilisation being culture, which is a group of groups, inevitably must have a government. I did not say "Leader" mind you, but I did say Government, which Anarchy by its true definition as seen in today's culture and acknowledged by the dictionary, and society: Is anti-government.
You cannot ever be a group of anarchists. It is the equivalent of being an atheistic theist: "Group cancels out anarchy cancels out group".
I don't want to live in the anarchy you would create.
The anarchy I would create?...Hakeem, the anarchy I 'created' is exactly what Anarchy is. You can't have different types of anarchy! Anarchy is purely absence of government. It is a singular concept in itself, and alone of itself. Absence.
In truest reality, you cannot have different types of dark. You either have pitch black nothing, "Dark-Dark" (which is darkness, the absence of light), OR you have varying degrees of brightness, from very, very dim ('dark' as we call it) to blindingly bright.
Anarchy is Dark-Dark, government is varying degrees of light.
Even so, try as anyone might, I don't think such a selfish world could exist: It is against our nature. Even if people grew up without government, I don't think they could possibly be like that.
It already exists, with varying shades of light (government) keeping it from totally engulfing the world in abuse of free-will, atleast for the ideal of it.
And trust me...People aren't magically wonderful, and angelic. They are born, and they proceed to being hellions by the age of two for the most part, especially if they are undisciplined by authorities (government).
Because he's a danger to your life. He is clearly a violent person and wont hesitate to kill you. It's kill or be killed, remember? Steal or be robbed. If you don't take what Herod has, he will take what you have.
As far as I would be concerned, having been raised without any of the things I mentioned previously: Herod would merely have taken a mate. Who am I to judge his tastes? Why is he a danger to me? I'm not a little girl, neither am I intending to steal his mate, and I'm also passing through, or avoiding his territory completely.
In your anarchy, anyway. Mine raises people on these kinds of principals:
Your anarchy appears to not even be an anarchy. It is...something else, as far as you seem to be pressing it.
Your own selfish logic betrays you: It is safer to yourself to leave other people to their own business.
Yes it is! In an Anarchy where Selfishness = Survival.
It's even safer to form a partnership with mutual benefits. Strength in numbers. You, for your own selfish reasons, seek mutual partnership with other people.
Two birds, group, government.
Even if you don't, I would put a bullet in Herod's head.
In an Anarchy you wouldn't know to do so in the first place...You'd have been raised with zero moral background, where selfishness = survival.
The only possible reason you could have to put a bullet in Herod's head given the circumstances of an Anarchy, would be to take Amy for your own uses.
Where there is distinct military rule.
When Government abuses free-will, it is up to the people (their right) to abolish it, and replace it with a better form of government.
Anarchy is a form of neutrality when it comes to government.
No it isn't...Its ABSENCE: Absence can never be neutral by its very definition.
Given sufficient power, government has the ability to be far worse than even your anarchy.
"My anarchy" = Anarchy as it is.
Government when it ceases to limit, and punish abuse of free-will, abusing free-will itself, ceases to be government: having deviated from its function. But instead becomes a rogue agency that must be removed, and can be in time.
Anarchy removes every ounce of authority from society: Anarchy can have no authority but the authority of self-over-the-self. Abuse of free-will shall run rampant as the moral backgrounds and authorities that discipline, enforce, and permeate the culture are no more to hinder mankind's most selfish inner being.
Also: A candle might burn you, and it might be very dim compared to a light bulb, or a street lamp. And while darkness can't burn you...atleast with a candle you can see a little bit. If you are walking around perfectly blind, you are sure to hit a few things, and probably fall and break your neck, a burn is better than a deadly fall.
Now, give me evidence of a child soldier in Uganda that threw his grandma and child out on the street. There are families that break even with government. Unless you can show that all child soldiers disown their ties of kinship entirely, I am still right about blood ties being strong.
...Are you even aware of the child soldier problem that was in Uganda?
http://bbpbooks.teachingforchange.org/book/9781556527999
Anarchy doesn't even HAVE family ties, family is a form of government.
There are definitely the cases where people cut off their ties of kinship, but it is evolutionarily a bad thing: Parents that leave their children on the street are not likely to have very many offspring.
Herd instinct is great, isn't it?
Not when the government is military rule. A dictator can run the country any way he wants. If he wants to cause chaos, he could run the world into the deepest pits of hell.
And people who are raised in good governments will certainly put a stop to that.
With government, it depends entirely on the government. With anarchy, it depends entirely on the people. How the people act is what determines what the anarchy will be, and how they are raised determines how they will act.
And they will certainly act like hellions. You cannot be raised as an anarchist, let alone raised as a peaceful one. That defies the very nature of Anarchy.
When I say "my anarchy," and, "your anarchy," I am referring to the way we would raise our children in an anarchy, if we ourselves were raised in an anarchy. In anarchy, I would raise my children to work together without a ruler, and this would create a distinct culture. Under anarchy, you would raise your children differently, and that would create another distinct culture.
What you would do is merely create a small government...which would defeat anarchy, and its purpose; ceasing to be an anarchy.
I didn't say that was the only way to realize anarchy. I was merely stating that, given the optimum ability to control the minds of the populous, I could never take away their basic care for each other as members of the same species. Your anarchy is unsustainable because people aren't as selfish and bitter as you would have them raised to be. They would inevitably come to be raised the way I would raise them, because it is beneficial to work together.
My anarchy is what Anarchy is, and as such...is entirely unstable just like the Pure Anarchy of Anarchy is.
And to note: It isn't how "I would raise them to be": Do not imply that I am in essence, a bad parent. It is how people are when left to their own devices without authority/authorities in place, where in an Anarchy authority doesn't exist, and cannot exist at all, lest Anarchy cease to be.
Not the point I was trying to imply. The point is that an army of citizens can and will beat an organized militia. The communities will not fall to the raiders, even if the raiders were more organized and disciplined than the communities.
And I made the point in answer: That required Government, and Authority of some kind to do so!
Community has Government!
Two people to have something to trade that the other wants more than the item they are willing to trade, and for them to agree that trading is a lot easier than trying to kill each other.
And they trade, bargain, and etc...a form of authority is set in place between them, commitments are made, and wealth is shared, they make a decision together to reach the goal of gaining wealth: Hence a government.
Two birds works on the same principle in market, as it does in politics.
To get a "market" in the more physical sense, all you need is enough people like mentioned above to gather together.
Group.
No, that is pure rebellion, not pure anarchy. Pure anarchy is thus:
"You are well within your anarchic rights to make me leave!"
Saying, "There is no law saying I have to leave," is not the same as saying, "You can't make me leave." He definitely can make you leave. There is no law saying he can't make you leave, and there is no law saying you have to leave. You can either be a big boy and leave his store, or you can try to take over the store for your own purposes. Both are fully legal in the anarchy. Of course, if you take over his store, don't be surprised if the store owner next door treats you unkindly.
And here we have the flaw...
"Take over" = Authority
"To leave after being told" = To submit to authority
Both of which destroy Anarchy.
Fine, we'll use your definition and say it is government. I leave his store. I'm free! No more things on shelves! No more commands to get out! I'm free to do whatever I want! I've left his "government" and now it has no power over me.
I'll see you when you starve to death
Because there isn't any family to take you in (that's government), no unemployment line (that's government), no church to feed you (that's a group under the authority of God, both of which have government), and the very second you steal is the second you get shot by someone who decided to protect his belongings.
So basically, you either submit to another government, form your own, or you die...which either defeats Anarchy or makes it thoroughly useless to your survival (because you've starved to death).
In a world like the current one, there is a thing I call "The Cravendaver." The Cravendaver is an entity that makes "quadenblotches." Quadenblotches are written rules that are strictly enforced by officers of the Cravendaver. Examples of quadenblotches are that you must be at least this tall to ride certain rides. Another example is that you can't take the life of another human. Another example is that, every year, you must give money to the Cravendaver.
In a world with a Cravendaver, even after leaving the store, I'm still bound by the quadenblotches. Why the Cravendaver is enforcing its quadenblotches on me is a mystery.
Because society doesn't want people who rebel against it, and endanger their way of life, safety, and stability.
Why else are Haggledooglepoopids put in Fraggonhall when they splittlequitch the quadenblotche and abuse their free-will, and in doing so do harm to the huudlegruuf?
Sure, if you like to define government loosely like that. I can live just fine without the Cravendaver and it's quadenblotches, though.
You won't live for very long.