Anarchy Is For Everyone

[christian]

Posted by Eram (here)
If there is no one to lead and educate...
How will people come to wisdom?

If not by some sort of structure, then by what?

Anarchy is not the absence of structure or leadership. It's the absence of impositions. All that you think is needed in a society can be organized, but freely and (then probably) in a transparent way, and it does not need to be imposed on anybody who doesn't want to take part in whatever it is.

Posted by DNA (here)
I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished.

Anarchists argue that if you don't trust people, how could you trust them with forming a government? In a sense it's the distrust of people in positions of power as well as the trust in their own and humanity's ability to thrive when free that is characteristic for anarchists.

[Eram]

Posted by christian (here)
Anarchy is not the absence of structure or leadership. It's the absence of impositions. All that you think is needed in a society can be organized, but freely and (then probably) in a transparent way, and it does not need to be imposed on anybody who doesn't want to take part in whatever it is.

Well said Chrtistian!

Here mandela (played by Morgan Freemand in the movie invictus) helps his fellow man to understand that reconciliation must be placed above "getting even" if a nation wants to be able to function.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JMAje0p5-YM

Would you call this impose" or leading the way?

What I'm saying is, that if you are to believe in evolution and rebirth, it is difficult to uphold the idea that all man are equal as in, able to reach the same level of consciousness as all the others currently allive.
The model of anarchy would work if all people are equal and able to reach a certain level of consciousness to be able to let it function right.

If Humanity is a phase of life that every soul goes through in it's journey to omnipotence, starting in the mineral world, plant world, animal world and working it's way up through the human world, then it would be difficult to get a system like this running properly.

I'd say, let the wise lead the way

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Eram (here)
Hmm... I don't know about this one dianna.

I think anarchy leads to barbarism and stupidity.
Just look at all places in society were anarchy rules, like between companies and nations.

If there is no one to lead and educate...
How will people come to wisdom?

If not by some sort of structure, then by what?

An infant, thrown into the wild, raised by wolves will grow up without a developed intellect and other tools that one needs to live in harmony.

The individualist will to power leads to division. The universalist will to unity shows the value
and viability of our individualism.

They way I see it, corporations and nations are consistently leading us into forms of barbarism and stupidity (how many innocent lives lost each year from wars based on lies started by "civil" nations?), but without our consent even. I see Pan has covered the rest of what I was going to touch on in his response so I'll leave this as is

[christian]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
They way I see it, corporations and nations are consistently leading us into forms of barbarism and stupidity (how many innocent lives lost each year from wars based on lies started by "civil" nations?), but without our consent even.

Corporations and nations are just vehicles, not drivers. It's people (or beings) who act. And in a way, we do consent, if we go along with it without doing anything about it, that's silent consent.

Posted by Eram (here)
Here mandela (played by Morgan Freemand in the movie invictus) helps his fellow man to understand that reconciliation must be placed above "getting even" if a nation wants to be able to function.

Would you call this impose" or leading the way?

I'd call that making a suggestion. People are free to go with it, reject it, or modify it.

Posted by Eram (here)
What I'm saying is, that if you are to believe in evolution and rebirth, it is difficult to uphold the idea that all man are equal as in, able to reach the same level of consciousness as all the others currently allive.

Even if that is the case, I don't see any problem with that. People are all unique individuals, that's at the core of Anarchism. The equality is in their right to free self-determination as long as they don't interfere with others.

Posted by Eram (here)
I'd say, let the wise lead the way

How about "let wisdom lead the way"? But either way, who determines who is wise and what is wisdom? Because we're all fallible, anarchists argue that it's reasonable to allow everyone to seek wisdom freely without being subjected to another fallible human that rules over his or her life.

[Eram]

Thanks for the crash course in anarchy you all.

There are many features in that approach the idea of utopia

Posted by christian (here)
Even if that is the case, I don't see any problem with that. People are all unique individuals, that's at the core of Anarchism. The equality is in their right to free self-determination as long as they don't interfere with others.

This seems to me to be the crux of the matter (my reservations about anarchy).

What if someone is to interfere with others?
murder, rape, deception, manipulation and so on...
How would a world where anarchy rules act to these kinds of manifestations?
Is freedom still in place when we put a stop on these acts?

Freedom is gained through understanding the laws of the universe (by which life is governed) and brings responsibility along with it.
Otherwise, we are slave to the impulses that the ego dictates.

To grant all people the freedom to do as they please is like telling my 6 year old to do as he pleases as well.

In the end, it is the overall level of consciousness of the people which decides whether a system like this would succeed and when I look around, I would say that currently, humanity is nowhere near this kind of consciousness (imposed by tptb or through shear ignorance).

[norman]

Oh, ok, I get it now................

Anarchy is billions of wolves and sheep deciding what they are going to eat for lunch.

[christian]

Posted by Eram (here)
What if someone is to interfere with others?
murder, rape, deception, manipulation and so on...
How would a world where anarchy rules act to these kinds of manifestations?
Is freedom still in place when we put a stop on these acts?

Just like now, it depends on how people organize their legal system. Now, it's owned and regulated by the state, it's a monopoly. That could be handled differently. Anarchists agree that violations of your personal space and integrity are punishable, the details of how this could be organized more freely have been laid out by people like Hoppe, Rothbard, or Mises.

Luckily, I can refer to them instead of having to spell out the details here.

Posted by Eram (here)
To grant all people the freedom to do as they please is like telling my 6 year old to do as he pleases as well.

I don't think all people are like your six-year-old.

The issue with how to treat children shows: The idea of anarchy is simple, its application is complex. I think a child is his or her own person as well, and if it feels mistreated, it should be free to go. If the child can make a living on its own, or if there's a (freely organized) institution that would take care of such children, there we go.

Posted by norman (here)
Oh, ok, I get it now................

Anarchy is billions of wolves and sheep deciding what they are going to eat for lunch.

Actually, it's more about human interactions. It's about each individual deciding freely what he or she is gonna have for dinner and no one stealing from each other or eating one another, for that would be punishable.

[TargeT]

Anarchy eh?

Anarchy (Anarchocapitalism) FAQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=60veZm9ZbyU

Practical Anarchy:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Cwet4s07DlU

Stefan Molyneux is probably one of my favorite speakers on this topic... enjoy!


everytime you roll through a stop sign (when no one is there), you are an anarchist, every time you help an old lady across the street, you are an anarchist.... picking up someone elses trash in a park? YUP, anarchist!

Anarchy (or Voluntarism) is un-comparably the best option for humans, especially in the technological age we are in now (where employment CAN be optional, if allowed via automation)

[Eram]

Posted by christian (here)
I don't think all people are like your six-year-old.

I'd argue that many people are worse then that



if you put 100 psychopathic inmates on an island and give them anarchy.... would it succeed?
if you were to imply anarchy on the world right now... would it succeed?

It still comes back to consciousness.
A certain level is necessary for it to be able to work and for the little I know about the idea of anarchy, this issue is not addressed properly.

Imo.... there would be an great deal of education and the raising of consciousness through other means necessary to come to the point that the world is only slightly able to embrace this model.


A funny and appropriate side note... I was the product of two parents who were part of the provo movement (I think you must have heard of that since you live in Germany?) and they raised me with loads of freedom to do as I pleased.
I can assure you that it did me little good and still today, I am fighting to overcome hindrance it caused me in my life.

The growth of ego needs to be addressed early on in life.
Balance is key!

[christian]

Posted by Eram (here)
if you put 100 psychopathic inmates on an island and give them anarchy.... would it succeed?
if you were to imply anarchy on the world right now... would it succeed?

It still comes back to consciousness.
A certain level is necessary for it to be able to work and for the little I know about the idea of anarchy, this issue is not addressed properly.

Imo.... there would be an great deal of education and the raising of consciousness through other means necessary to come to the point that the world is only slightly able to embrace this model.

I think you're spot-on. If it would work right now, it would already be there right now. It's as simple as that. It's possible when it's done. It takes educated, responsible, and vigilant people.

Posted by Eram (here)
A funny and appropriate side note... I was the product of two parents who were part of the provo movement (I think you must have heard of that since you live in Germany?) and they raised me with loads of freedom to do as I pleased.
I can assure you that it did me little good and still today, I am fighting to overcome hindrance it caused me in my life.

The growth of ego needs to be addressed early on in life.
Balance is key!

I think you're spot-on again. Nobody is an island, especially not in the circle of parents and children. If you as a parent don't take responsibility and don't act as a leader for your children, you're not doing your job. Not doing anything in order to do nothing wrong is not the answer.


-------


By the way, Stefan Molyneux, despite the interesting thoughts he comes up with at times, is super creepy when it comes to his take on family. He helped a lot of people to think for themselves, but he is also responsible for a lot of families breaking apart.

This is a quote from him:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century."

More about Molyneux and his take on families is in this article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...fdr-defoo-cult

[DNA]

Posted by DNA (here)
I'm a libertarian because I don't trust the people as much as anarchists do. I want to see government limited as much as possible; I would like to see it reduced back to where it was in Jefferson's time, or even smaller. But I would not like to see it abolished.

Posted by christian (here)
Anarchists argue that if you don't trust people, how could you trust them with forming a government? In a sense it's the distrust of people in positions of power as well as the trust in their own and humanity's ability to thrive when free that is characteristic for anarchists.

Here is the bottom line, souls are of different ages. We all go through an evolution of sorts. And in my opinion we all do the worst of the worst in one life time or another. The more we put our self on a pedestal and act all holy and spiritual the more you really do not have a clue in my opinion. This is nothing personal and has nothing to do with any one individual.
Souls of different ages are going to go through some horrible stuff on both ends of the drama. There is no way to circumvent this from what I have gathered.

As such, I would rather some of these young souls have a series of checks and balances in place.
So, yes, I do appreciate a ahem, form of Government, albeit a much lighter and more hands off version than what we are experiencing here in the USA.

Here is a snippet of how I personally view anarchy in it's true form if folks were left to do what they might.
And the quote from Wilson is basically a guy who wrote books championing anarchy in his younger days only to realize this probably isn't the best idea.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bGLk8BZ4Wqk

[Milneman]

From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

What's that mean in plain english? :D

[Milneman]

Posted by Eram (here)
Basically,

The problem with any system of government is that it depends on the level of consciousness for it to work properly.
If the overall consciousness of humanity is high enough, any system will do.
If the consciousness is low, no system will work as it is supposed to.

Posted by panopticon (here)
What it means in the context that I refer to is you get together with your friends and arrange who is going to drive who to the restaurant for dinner. That's anarchy. There's probably no-one telling you the required schedule, there's probably no-one saying "do this or else" (if there is then get out now!). You are just chatting with friends and decide to go out to dinner and someone says "I'll drive". That's anarchy. Nothing scary, nothing terrifying. Just normal human relations.

Hi Pan,

Do you think that if all governments would retire tomorrow that this would result in the picture that you painted in your quote, even if all people would take this anarchy model as a point of exit?
Is the consciousness level of humanity high enough to get this to work?

I'm an optimist by nature, but not to that extend

I'm not Pan, but couldn't resist.

Not retire, but stop being interventionist, then it might...but that would also require what I'm beginning to see what some considering themselves as "anarchists" are just using "common sense".....and when I realized that point, then I realized...we're f*cked. lmao The only way this system will work is if you accept a system of thought that....well....its going to require a sacrifice that I think most people are just simply incapable of making.

I'm a Platonist. That's why I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. That's it.

[Milneman]

I just think that the easiest solution is based within grass-root activism as a means of regaining control/power from those who have a vested interest in retaining it. The grass-root activism I refer to is based within the principles of community organisation found in Permaculture (see here, here and here, refer post here).

On this we absolutely agree, Pan.

Where it begins to break down for me is where it starts to look like Menshevism. aka pacifistic marxism.

Otherwise, we're on the same page bro.

[dianna]

LOL, everyone on this thread is cracking me up! you guys are great! My intention on this thread was to give a basic working definition of anarchy (historically and in philosophy) (with a bit of sarcasm, i.e., the nod to "punk rock" culture) which can be argued "till the cows come home" -- but then make the definition personal --- my second post "how we are actually "anarchists" in our daily life" (if you follow the link, you will see what I mean ... )

would anyone like to comment on this? Would anyone like to just make a statement on how they are anarchists in their daily lives, or in their pasts and why they felt the need to not be conventional?

[christian]

dianna, I think that pic is all about the idea that any laws written by man are always more "what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules," so never stop improvising, improving, and thinking for yourself!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0

Posted by DNA (here)
I would rather some of these young souls have a series of checks and balances in place.

Anarchism does not mean that there are no checks and balances. For checks and balances to work, they have to be brought to life and kept alive by vigilant and intelligent people, that applies in any society. In an anarchist society, however, you wouldn't force or demand anything from "young souls," you'd just make sure that they don't run amok and offer them guidance.

[TargeT]

Posted by christian (here)


By the way, Stefan Molyneux, despite the interesting thoughts he comes up with at times, is super creepy when it comes to his take on family. He helped a lot of people to think for themselves, but he is also responsible for a lot of families breaking apart.

This is a quote from him:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century."

More about Molyneux and his take on families is in this article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...fdr-defoo-cult

I've got to say, that's as clear a "hit piece" as I've ever seen....

Molyneux stays very true to his philosophy of voluntarism and relationships that are not forced (ie tax payer & the state, parents and children fall under that too). if you have another link, I'd read it but that one is really just character assassination centered on one story with a very biased writing perspective.

besides, this portion of your post is basically the logical fallacy "add Homenon" and I'm not really sure why you ignored the message & went after the messager.....


so... back to the topic!

Posted by dianna (here)
would anyone like to comment on this? Would anyone like to just make a statement on how they are anarchists in their daily lives, or in their pasts and why they felt the need to not be conventional?[/B]

I am a coward anarchist, I only do what I want when I know doing so won't cause any issues.

I run redlights and stop signs when there is clearly no one there, I ensure everything at work is caught up (ie i fullfill my position description) and take long lunches or leave early, I ride a motorcycle and skip to the front of traffic when safe to, ignore speed limit signs, ignore most signs, go to bed when I waNT and generally try to be my own person as much as possible.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
They way I see it, corporations and nations are consistently leading us into forms of barbarism and stupidity (how many innocent lives lost each year from wars based on lies started by "civil" nations?), but without our consent even.

Corporations and nations are just vehicles, not drivers. It's people (or beings) who act. And in a way, we do consent, if we go along with it without doing anything about it, that's silent consent.
...

I actually have to make a distinction here, A corporation acts as a sole entity, it neither has morals nor ethics, nor any emotion. the "Corporation" was invented as it's own entity mostly to keep the owners and people who direct the corporation, safe from retribution in the case the corporation does harm en - mass. For example, if you get sick from a pharma drug - you sue the corporations, not any person -- all the peoples who made the decisions to bring a harmful or dangerous product to market are fully innocent and protected because all retribution falls on the corporation. Corporations and Political arenas are enablers of morally bankrupt policies, I will guarantee there would be no single person making these types of decisions if they thought they could be held personally accountable for their actions. Therefore the moral legitimacy of any corporation or political system, is in no way reflective of the moral legitimacy of the people inside these structures.

I do agree in a sense we "consent" by not doing ... what? Going to war with corporations and governments? Get rid of those and the landscape of "moral legitimacy" also changes drastically. My 2 cents

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Eram (here)
...
if you put 100 psychopathic inmates on an island and give them anarchy.... would it succeed?
...

We do have Australia -- it succeeded quite well for a country that started off as a penal colony.

The irony is -- we all say we want freedom, we want to think for ourselves, we want our own choices in health care, in food, we don't won't large organizations spying on us t=or to control the trillions of trade dollars - "We want Freedom!" we scream here on Avalon. But the fact is we are not ready for that freedom ... look how afraid we are of it even, this is the programmed fear I referred to earlier. Without some form of Anarchy -- there can be no true freedom. To believe so is to believe a lie to alleviate the fear we are programmed with.

I do believe that Anarchy would work, right now. But perhaps we need still further tyranny and control before we can be at the place to truly appreciate a responsible form of Anarchy. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe it is inevitable, but let me explain. I believe one of two directions are inevitable -- either a complete tyrannical communist one world police state, or true freedom -- likely first the former will come into play if we don't stop it, and if we still have our wits about us, the latter will be the solution to the former. My 2 cents

[christian]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by christian (here)
By the way, Stefan Molyneux, despite the interesting thoughts he comes up with at times, is super creepy when it comes to his take on family. He helped a lot of people to think for themselves, but he is also responsible for a lot of families breaking apart.

This is a quote from him:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century."

Molyneux stays very true to his philosophy of voluntarism and relationships that are not forced (ie tax payer & the state, parents and children fall under that too).

[. . .]

besides, this portion of your post is basically the logical fallacy "add Homenon" and I'm not really sure why you ignored the message & went after the messager.....

I did acknowledge the message and did commend Stefan for his achievements, so I'm hardly "going after him." You cited Stefan Molyneux as an inspiring thinker. I agree with that. The issue has been brought up how Anarchism relates to the concept of the family, and I find his thoughts on that are not too helpful. The article I quoted is certainly not the epitome of good journalism, but it does highlight the issue that Stefan's view on the family and his advice in that regard has caused more families to break apart than to communicate. I think Stefan is a very intelligent man, but he often seems to have very little heart or emotional intelligence.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
the "Corporation" was invented as it's own entity mostly to keep the owners and people who direct the corporation, safe from retribution in the case the corporation does harm en - mass. For example, if you get sick from a pharma drug - you sue the corporations, not any person -- all the peoples who made the decisions to bring a harmful or dangerous product to market are fully innocent and protected because all retribution falls on the corporation.

There you have it. People create corporations, people create the environment in which corporations act as straw men, people acquiesce to that. Fighting a corporation or corporations in general is fighting shadows, as you say. We, the people, cast shadows.