Anarchy and Such- A DAC split

[Wooz]

I meant those that hate authority.

IMO somebody that doesn't at least question authority and blindly follows it is an utter moron. There's a gap between hating and questioning authority, and questioning authority's right to be. Just as there's a gap between Bakounin (19th century) and Chomsky's works.

In any case, authority on message boards and authority in real life are two separate things. For one, the first doesn't have consequences on my entire life. Besides, everybody joining a community must stick to some basic rules and behave like a human being.
"Anarchism" is not, contrarily to you may think, making a huge mess out of everything, justifying it by a "no rules is k3wl" dogma. It's more about collaborating with each other to the extent of not needing countries as institutions anymore.

God, you all preach freedom of speech, yet when someone MENTIONS an idea, all of you get on a bashing rampage.

Nope, we just point out the bits we disagree on and explain why we do so. A bit energetically at times, but no 'bashing rampage' on this forum. Unless you post a thread about FOPOS being a good game.

 

[Ozrat]

Nope, we just point out the bits we disagree on and explain why we do so. A bit energetically at times, but no 'bashing rampage' on this forum. Unless you post a thread about FOPOS being a good game.

Not true. We'll only bash ya if you can't give us a decent explanation of why you like it. Or if you "flame" us for actually having good reasonings why we don't like the game yet. Honestly, is there anybody who's going around saying why they like the game? The biggest (only) fan I've noticed yet so far is ShadowPaladin, and he hasn't even played it yet!

 

[Paladin Solo]

"Anarchism" is not, contrarily to you may think, making a huge mess out of everything, justifying it by a "no rules is k3wl" dogma. It's more about collaborating with each other to the extent of not needing countries as institutions anymore.

Isn't that what started fuedal lordships which eventually led to nations such as France and Germany amongst others? I don't have much against anarchists, since they hate/disagree about all countries (the idea of countries) instead of being just anti-American. I also don't blindly follow authority. I question my leaders not often, but when I do find something wrong about what he/she said and/or does.

 

[Wooz]

Sorry if I derail this thread too much. In any case, the "Duck and Cover" issue is hardly news so maybe a mod could split this?

I wrote:

t's more about collaborating with each other to the extent of not needing countries as institutions anymore.

PS wrote:

Isn't that what started fuedal lordships which eventually led to nations such as France and Germany amongst others?

I'm going to kill your history teacher.

Feudal lordships are hardly the next step of a near-utopian (or utopian and ridiculously childish and stupid, according to others) society.

You see, the point is to aim for a society which sets every citizen at the same level, without institutions, an individual or a group of individuals imposing their will to the rest of the citizens.

It is, as a matter of fact, the exact *opposite* of feudalism ( Lord imposes taxes and literally owns everyone in the land, backed up by a religious institution, which justifies the King/chieftain/lord 's power by the Will of God. Strangely enough, people still believe in this in some parts of the world, even today.)

The fact that I'm not the stereotypical hate-led individual doesn't mean there aren't any ultra radical "anarchist" groups around. I can't be responsible for a dumb fuck that can't even debate his point of view.

In any case, I fail to see how could a society can regress from such an advanced state to feudalism without a nuclear war.

 

[Ozrat]

I fail to see how could a society can regress from such an advanced state to feudalism without a nuclear war.

Ah, but you grossly underestimate the power of Bush.

 

[welsh]

Sorry if I derail this thread too much. In any case, the "Duck and Cover" issue is hardly news so maybe a mod could split this?

And so it is done.

Incidently, the anarachists of a the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries were often doing things we take as terrorism today.

Anyone remember the unibomber? Talk about anarchist!

Highly recommend reading The Secret Agent- a story of anarchy and terrorism in late 19th Century London that's quite a hoot.

 

[Wooz]

Ozrat wrote:

Wooz69 wrote:
I fail to see how could a society can regress from such an advanced state to feudalism without a nuclear war.

Ah, but you grossly underestimate the power of Bush.

Yes, I was about to post that, but changed my mind. Didn't want to start yet another bush thread.

I'll correct my post, instead.

In any case, I fail to see how could a society can regress from such an advanced state to feudalism without a major cataclysm.

Welsh wrote:

Incidently, the anarachists of a the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries were often doing things we take as terrorism today.

Not only that, there were also several terrorist bombings, in the late 19th century and early 20th. As I said... the movement has somewhat evolved since the 19th century.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Rule #1 from the flick "Scarface":

"Never underestimate the other man's greed."

Quite frankly, the ultimate flaw in an anarchist's rhetoric is that they always underestimate the propensity for evil, greed, and all other sorts of misbehavior found in human nature. Unless you're envisioning a future where human behavior is ultimately modified via artificial means, then it's really just a silly pipe dream that can only end in disaster.

Not only that, but keep in mind that leadership does offer many organizational advantages and quite frankly, some people can't even rule themselves and need others to lead them. Although I don't agree with most of Nietsze's philosophy, he does make a good point in that some people truly are superior, and because of them, civilization has made remarkable advances.

Lastly, leader/follower group organization is inherent in human beings. No way around it. If we did eliminate all countries and religions, sooner or later people are going to form groups, whether on laws, religion, or just any opinion, it will happen, and a leader will be elected to spearhead their ideas.

Just like anarchist groups...

 

[megatron]

I don't really mind about squabbling between leaders and groups, that's always going too happen, leaders and followers have existed for a few billion years mebbe? Unless you're either totally alone or totally unified, things group together and has some authority.

I think humanity will always have some form of leader, it's up to you wether you choose too accept it or not. I don't see the down-side in having a leader, so long as they don't think they're superior and can order people around.

I think everybody should be able too do what they want. If they want a leader or authority, let them have it. But don't force it on them. Though I think our society has become too messed up too do anything intresting, so I guess we'll just stick too the same shitty thing that barely works right but just because it was slightly better than the last shit people had to put up with, they'll put up with this as well.

Only in extreme times do extreme changes happen. I doubt the northern governments will fuck anything up too badly in the next few years, just keep repeating what's happened before.

 

[Sander]

How cool. Anarchy. Just read this: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/anarchist.html a few days ago. Written by Eric S. Raymond, aka, leading linux and open source geek. I love that guy's site.

From what I read there, though, it seemed to me that his reasons for being an anarchist were that he didn't think democracy would work. THat doesn't seem like a terribly good reason, though. What's more, there are several holes in there.

Okay, now I'm going to say a bit about anarchy:
It will not work. Just like communism, socialism and whatnot it requires a utopian society, and sadly, that does not and will not exist.
One of the key features of anarchism is that it doesn't require or want leadership. Great for them, now let's see how long they last.
What will happen, is that things will go fine only for a very short while. After that, some of the following things will happen:
A) Criminals will have a field day.
B) Small groups of people will organise, and institute mob justice/arbitrary justice.
C) Everyone will start to organise themselves in one way or another in groups.
D) Decisions will need to be made, one way or another, this will either cause leaders to stand up, or a certain form of democracy to form. Probably both, in a lot of small communities.
E) Those very communities will become miniature countries of their own, probably having some form of justice and law, but more importantly, having some form leadership, thusly eliminating the priniciple of anarchy.
F) ANarchy and small communities will give rise to the survival of the fittest and the rule of the strongest. That is bad. Minorities will be fucked, unless they are accidentally in a good community.
G) Small communities and groups always give rise to greater communities. At some point somewhere, some megalomaniac will get a bunch of people behind him, and start kiling people.
H) Extreme opinions and politics will flourish, due to the reasonable physical isolation of certain communities.

Comment all you want.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wow. I completely agree with Sander. Now where are those four horsemen?

 

[Murdoch]

Sander, without derailing this derailment more, your debate sounds to me like the basic underpinnings of chaos theory.

Isn't chaos basically stating that order will naturally come from disorder? The parallel from your argument is that the chaos of anarchy, with no central power or organization, will naturally and ultimately lead to a state of order and uniformity, with laws and the like.

Interesting.

-goes off to ponder the nature of the universe-

 

[Sander]

True Murdoch, though I'm not stating that this is always so. I am stating that this will generally happen with humans. The simple proof for this, is the existence of society today. Throughout history, after the knocking down of power somewhere at some point, groups started to form again, sometimes smaller groups, sometimes larger ones, and they then formed a community. This is a natural process that has been happening throughout history.

One interesting thing to think about would be the INternet, though. While some(mainly those involved in Linux/UNIX/Open Source communities) would probably argue that the internet is a decentralised system, where anarchy basically rules, and it all works, this is not entirely true, and wouldn't make it true for the real world either.
While the hacker(not cracker, hacker, as in Open Source, Linux etc.) communities are often good examples of decentralised anarchist groups, they always tend to form leaderships, and look to one or several persons for leadership. Such is the case with Eric Raymond, who is pretty much a leading man in the hacker community.
WHat's more, on the internet, leadership and respect come from vastly different accomplishments than in the real world. No longer do charisma, beauty and power matter, but intelligence, skill in what the main focus of the group is and being the originator of the group make you a leader. This makes for a completely different view than the world where charisma and strength of arms matter.
Also, things on the internet are far from good. YOu have many stupid petty criminals, building viruses, cracking security and messing with other people's stuff.

 

[Murdoch]

So, basically the internet has a different set of rules that govern organizations and groups? Well, yeah, that much is certain. For one thing, this forum has its groups who people listen to and not. Those people are probably not the same people who you would allow to influence your opinion out on the street. For instance, I probably wouldn't take Extreme Ryno seriously if it wasn't for this board.

Do you know of any books or articles published that detail the group dynamics and their differences between IRL and internet groups? It seems to me that this difference would reveal basic tents that make up human communities, by comparing the similarities and differences, while being an interesting read too.

 

[Sander]

Check out that ESR guy's site. There's bound to be some writings about it somewhere in the essays bit(reminder: www.catb.org/~esr )
Methinks his "The Church and the Bazaar" deals with internet communities as well, since it's about Open Source Software and making it etc. Hmm, I should go read that book.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sorry if I derail this thread too much. In any case, the "Duck and Cover" issue is hardly news so maybe a mod could split this?

I wrote:

t's more about collaborating with each other to the extent of not needing countries as institutions anymore.

PS wrote:

Isn't that what started fuedal lordships which eventually led to nations such as France and Germany amongst others?

I'm going to kill your history teacher.

Feudal lordships are hardly the next step of a near-utopian (or utopian and ridiculously childish and stupid, according to others) society.

You see, the point is to aim for a society which sets every citizen at the same level, without institutions, an individual or a group of individuals imposing their will to the rest of the citizens.

It is, as a matter of fact, the exact *opposite* of feudalism ( Lord imposes taxes and literally owns everyone in the land, backed up by a religious institution, which justifies the King/chieftain/lord 's power by the Will of God. Strangely enough, people still believe in this in some parts of the world, even today.)

The fact that I'm not the stereotypical hate-led individual doesn't mean there aren't any ultra radical "anarchist" groups around. I can't be responsible for a dumb fuck that can't even debate his point of view.

In any case, I fail to see how could a society can regress from such an advanced state to feudalism without a nuclear war.


Anarchism" is not, contrarily to you may think, making a huge mess out of everything, justifying it by a "no rules is k3wl" dogma. It's more about collaborating with each other to the extent of not needing countries as institutions anymore.

*Sigh*

Ok, read the second part I bolded. That's what started fuedalism in Europe wasn't it. People working with eachother to protect one another, collaborating with eachother. How, or why, would you think that wouldn't once again lead to forming borders and countries? The first bolded part, first off, I know there are radicals around. Secondly, it's a bit hard to debate your point when the other person doesn't seem to try and comprehend what was said before making a remark. Unless of course, you weren't talking to me.

 

[Sander]

PS: While your statement here seems to make sense, it's flawed. That's not solely what started feudalism. Feudalism started because:
a) Kings couldn't control their vast empires all by themselves. It was simple distribution of tasks.
b) People who had done good stuff for the country needed to be rewarded.
c) It was a way to get smaller states to join yuour larger empire.
The fact that there was mutual protection wasn't a reason for feudalism, but more of a consequence.

 

[Wooz]

Sorry to interrupt to make a "stupid" comment like the following:

I have plenty of things to say about what you guys mentioned above/criticized/debated. Rather big posts that require time and maybe a couple of links.

The thing is, I'm Uber-busy at the moment, as I have to present a couple of perspective drawings in the academy tomorrow, and pass other exams as well. The lazy ass that I am, didn't do the things when i had to and have to do them now.

To give the drama a bit more depth I'm going to spend the weekend away from my house and incidentally from my computer, there's a big music festival going on and I plan to go, it's in a city a bit far from my house ( Toruń ).

Don't wanted to look as if i'd chickened out of the debate. Hang on until monday or late, very late sunday.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Well good luck with that thing you got to do in that place and at this time. Ha ha. Yeah, good luck with your drawings. I'm sure you'll come up with something good to say though about our remarks.

 

[megatron]

I don't really care about systems. If you don't like them you don't need them. Too many people are happy just being whatever society dumped on them instead of doing what they want.

Any of the extreme parties could work, they just don't take people into account. The world is too small and old for a decent society too exist that pleases everyone.

I think the best way to do it would be for political parties too be assigned a country. Instead of changing systems all the time to suit yourself, just move. There'd just be a few rules for the planet like allowing people in and out of your country, not attacking other countries etc.