Putting Anarchy in its Place

Discussion in 'Anarchy' started by ADionysian, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Good deal of people enjoy living in large communities though.
     
  2. OhSoDreadful

    OhSoDreadful Childish Idealist

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    4
    Most people who enjoy living in large communities don't adhere to all the laws imposed on them and do things their own way.

    Even if there is just ONE law you choose not to follow it shows the flaws of having government at all because human nature is to do what we want.
     
  3. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    unfortunately, it's not so easily accomplished in a system like this.

    it really depends on the company. when talking about Apple for example, the products last for a long time and they profit by constantly upgrading their products. that is a good business. as opposed to Microsoft with Windows computers that do not last, and that's because care more about the $$ that's coming in. microsoft sells firewall passwords for money, giving industry to antivirus companies also. and most viruses are based on business motives so that companies will crack privacy of computers for advertising purposes.

    no it wouldn't slow down technology, it'd constantly improve it at a faster pace than its going now. the reason why innovation happens isn't solely because people need to make profit, it's to better the standard of living. or at least it does in the process. an idea doesn't happen because of money (unless you're brainstorming ways to make a buck), they happen for other reasons like convenience, or improving economy.
    when one isn't working most of the time, they have more availability to learn and develop ideas

    i'm sorry your life sux now. you will wither and die whether you 'find a meaning' or not. if your life right now isn't meaning enough, then i dont know what to say to you, besides you need some kind of existentialist epiphany.
    so does a resource-based economy create a mere existence? well yeah, but our system now is the exact same except we struggle and fight eachother until we die. keeping in mind i qualify owning and endorsing money to be fighting based on my very first explanation of money fundamentals.
    if you can't find further ways to better yourself, or find things to strive for now, that's more of a personal problem.

    yes. an unfortunate truth that needs to change.

    well first of all it wouldn't be prohibited, and i never said it would be. you make it sound like a dictatorship in which it's not. the dictating factors is human's scientific designs. if you want to live off-the-grid in that system then that's perfectly fine. secondly, i don't find taking pride in the land you occupy or the things you have sick. i find glorifying money, forming strict boundary lines, and dreaming to be rich sick. and third, i don't think my standards are the only good ones. if i did, i wouldn't have agreed with anything the op said, and some things of what you said. if i didn't think anyone elses standards were good, i would have absolute no optimism in people, making me not even appear on this thread in the first place. everyone's standards and ideals, whether they be good or bad all have contributed to my perspective, just like yours and everybody else's, i'm simply a person providing an idea.

    this is taken WAY out of context. that wasn't an official list of the only things you may do, it was giving examples to portray the things that can be would probably be commonly done. and the reprogramming statement is a bit of an irrational thought.

    and what's the definition of fascism? by dictionary.com:
    1.
    ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


    in no way does this relate to the resource-based economy whatsoever.
    a more loose definition of fascism being a society or government that forces one belief on the society. and in no way does it do this either.
    there is a difference between mutual ideals and fascism, and like i was explaining before regarding nations, a level of interconnectedness is a requirement for such an idea to happen.


    and i agree with ohsodreadful, when he/she states that anarchy only works in local levels. any system at that works much better in local levels
     
  4. ADionysian

    ADionysian Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright I've just got a couple points to make here.

    First I personally like a lot of the ideas about a resource-based economy, and I take it you're familiar with the Venus Project. I like it a lot but it has some authoritarian tendencies that I think are being overlooked. A big problem is that it elevates calculative scientific logic over the human element. Is it too hard to imagine that in such a society those who are most "scientific" and "rational" would feel themselves to be masters over the rest of the "ignorant" people? Perhaps the technicians would become a ruling class? I just see certain hierarchical tendencies in this scheme, though in its broad outline it's a great idea.

    As far as the human incentive comments, I don't think anarchy would present a problem for incentive. If the drudgery of laboring to satisfy our needs is taken care of by automation (UNDER THE PEOPLES CONTROL) then there are still avenues whereby one can pursue excellence. Scientific, athletic, and artistic pursuits would become more and more prevalent as people would have more time and energy to devote themselves to these matters. I think this would be a tremendous help to our culture and would in fact elevate, rather than crush, the human spirit.
     
  5. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    lol no it doesn't, shows some people are willing to take risks depending on how bad the punishment is. People break laws even with the threat of severe punishment, doesn't change the fact there should still be laws against things like murder, rape, fraud, pollution, ect to give people more insurance over the possibility of having a crime committed against them. That's like saying if your case isn't solved by the police it shows the flaws in paying for a police department at all.
     
  6. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    anyone in the society would be able to contribute a variety of ideas. as probably only a precentage of the people would be the best for technical designs, there isn't a way for them to rule over anyone/everyone else. they may be acknowledged by the rest of society for providing the idea, but theres no way for them have authority. and for everyone else that isn't those "engineers" or the "geniuses", they still provide important thought into economy's operation.
    hierarchy is much much much more apparent in a monetary system, and that's because of the fundamentals of it all.


    a resource-based economy isn't just about a change in the way resources are organized, but it also demands and creates a change in society's mentality. so it is hard to relate to society now because it's vastly different, but like i said in a previous post, it is an equilibrium.
     
  7. OhSoDreadful

    OhSoDreadful Childish Idealist

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    4
    Murder, rape, fraud and pollution are ALL products of civilization. Living in a society where the goal of life is to climb the ladder and become better than people lower than you drives people to those things because life isn't meant to be competitive in the way it is now.

    People kill other people over what, money? I see no reason at all for someone to murder someone else living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. And even if they did, look at how many people -do- kill for money and material bullshit. Eliminate all the trivial bullshit that society brings and you'll see a serious drop in murder.
     
  8. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    You know people have been killing and raping people since before civilization right? You have a big slab of meat, someone is hungry, bang, club to the back of your head. In fact civilization probably helped stem it. This is why the concepts and creation of law and order in terms of written laws, courts, contracts, ect is considered one of the great achievements of human civilization.
     
  9. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    people don't kill because they need food anymore though. the reason why animals including humans before civilization did kill was for food which is due to scarce resources of it. our environment and living condition is extremely different now.
    and i personally think writing and recording is a greater achievement :)
    i think 'law and order' should be disected into the two parts and contrasted. law has made many problems itself, but order is an absolute, and it can take different forms.
     
  10. OhSoDreadful

    OhSoDreadful Childish Idealist

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yeah, and you don't see someone getting clubbed in the back of their head as less of a problem than war, torture, and the use of technology to manufacture weapons that make it impossible to defend yourself if you need to?

    Because then fighting would be about becoming strong and not just working till you have enough money to buy a gun so you don't have to ever improve yourself as a person.

    Edit: the only reason people would fight over food is if they didn't know how to find food themselves - which is the biggest problem of civilization
     
  11. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    War and torture are not a symptom of civilization, they're a symptom of humanity. If anything the amount of violence humans display to each other has gone down significantly since the rise of civilization. Technology isn't inherently evil and based around building bombs. Civilization doesn't cause a problem in finding food. Where do you live? Best chances are it's not in a place that can grow food all year long. Civilization means I can still go to a supermarket and buy food that was grown in California 2 weeks ago and don't have to hope my supplies last the winter. Civilization has what made food supplies secure. In fact this can be displayed over 2,000 years ago with the Roman empire. During the crisis of the 3rd century as trade around the empire began to stagnate from lack of law and regulation that made it a risky business, towns and the farmers/merchants in and around them began to focus all their supplies and output to a local or personal demand, which surprise lead to famine. The Roman empire got its empire internally under control again but in the western empire the effects were long lasting and set the groundwork for the rise of feudalism economics.

    Civilization is also the exact reason you don't have to spend your whole life working to buy a bigger gun. Resources are tied with power on why people fight. It's civilization that's the reason someone can't shoot you dead for any reason they want, be it food, land, power play, or just drunken fun. It's also the reason people aren't strung up in the town square by a mob of angry vigilantes when a crime is committed.
     
  12. ADionysian

    ADionysian Member

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Damn straight madcap, damn straight

    I would agree that civilization was, ultimately, the best thing that ever happened to humanity. I just think it can be so much better than it is now.

    When I consider it, it seems to me that we are headed toward one of two things; a global empire of wealth that will fall like Rome, or a cooperative society of some kind. I would like to see an anarchist society, which would be a cooperative society with a heavy emphasis on personal freedom. I think anarchism is the best conceivable way to live together as a civilization.
     
  13. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,614
    Likes Received:
    44
    I hate money as much as anyone, but I think JackFlash raises a very important point. Due to human nature, there will always be some sort of competitiveness, always be some sort've social comparisons and measurement of worth. Moreover, due to greed, there will always be some imbalance in the distribution of property, resources, etc. - with our without monetary justification.

    In fact, I would submit, the only way to acheive an even distribution would be with more extreme authority than this world has ever known.
     
  14. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Nominating myself as chancellor of this new authority.
     
  15. Duck

    Duck quack. Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,614
    Likes Received:
    44
    You'll get my vote as long as you remember that I have an invalid twin that no one's ever met, and I should get his share as well :daisy:

    That poor, poor brother of mine... :(
     
  16. JackFlash

    JackFlash Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was a take-off to my train to Haiti remark....Haiti is an Island. The point is: some things are the way they are for good reasons.


    Some people.
    I'm not suggesting that we all work so many hours. Take the system we presently have, make a few tweaks, add a bit more socialism and everyone could be employed working significantly fewer hours.


    You don't seem to understand that competition is part of our DNA and you aren't going to tame.


    If you teach a monkey that a chip can be traded for food, it learns that the chip has value. Male monkeys have been observed trading the chips to female monkeys for sex. Humans are slightly more ingenious than monkeys, so take away their money and they will replace it with something, goods and services and items that are scarce. Barter is an age old human tradition, and it is an economy.

    Again with the restrictions on freedom.


    Interesting....A man's home is a reflection on his self.
    I built my home, with the help of a couple of friends. I drove the nails, ran the wire painted and even made some of the lumber from trees on the property. I designed and built a greenhouse and gardens. I even made my own well in an aquifer on the property. My home is a reflection of who I am. Most people who own their homes feel this way.

    Isn't that what you proposed in your statement (#8):

    "crime in general (of what is still left from removing corrupt motives) would be dealt with as it is a symptom. people will not be thrown in jail for wrong-doing, they will be rehabilitated, and dealt with by the scientific process."


    And, by removing all other options, isn't that what your system would do effectively do?

    .
     
  17. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    no facts prove human nature always demonstrates competitiveness. humans are hugely different than animals because of our consciousness, we don't run on instincts. humans form their nature by the way they were raised and their environment. for example, muslim women cover their face not because that's human's nature, it's because it's their culture. or some young men are enthusiatic about joining the army because throughout their life, war was glorified. for animals, both instincts and the environment affect their nature. animals act hostilely because they need to fight because of scarcity reasons.

    as for social comparisons and measurement worth, ya those will always exist as long as consciousness is there. if your post was in response to the resource-based economy idea, i'd say these two things are irrelevant to the structure of the system, and are another example why a monetary system is more destructive
     
  18. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,392
    Likes Received:
    20
    Also when talking about humans vs animals, you have to put basic instincts into more abstract forms. Humans like all animals seek comfort and security. With humans security has transformed itself into stockpiles of food and goods to trade, with eventually lead to money as a better way to build wealth and facilitate trade. Humans are greedy by nature.
     
  19. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    i know. so for you trains can only be made on land?


    no its not. there are no facts on this.
    and "and you aren't going to tame." what?

    yes barter is a way of economy, but like i was saying in my previous post, it comes down to environment and living conditions. so you can't conclude this would happen in a system that has never been demonstrated in history.

    awesome. that's great to hear.

    i'd consider a big difference between reprogramming and rehabilitating. you just want to put some negative spin to what i'm saying because of some kind of strong bias or reluctance. your statement is solely that

    an individual doesn't have to adhere to machines making everything for them, but it doesn't really change the huge economic solutions being implemented. if one doesn't want to acknowledge that best-design continuum, there's nothing stopping them from doing what they want! as for what material economic decisions will be made, science is the best dictation because it doesn't believe in things, it doesn't hold opinion, it doesn't have alternative motives unlike most other dictations being made in the world now.
     
  20. boguskyle

    boguskyle kyleboguesque

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    14
    comfort can be attached with anything though, like responsibilities, high heeled shoes, eating french fries, sunshine, etc. i think the example with food and goods with the intent on bartering is hugely due to the environment this person is living in. like with how many americans are obese, well check out all them fast food places and such great avaliability to unhealthy foods, while people have the thoughts in their minds of priority of making money to continue. i agree humans are greedy by nature, but that nature is formed by culture and environment.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice