Anarchy works when it comes to trillions of cells in our body. It works in our love life and procreation (billions of people manage to fall in love, have sex, get married and have children without help from the government). It works with learning, skill acquisition, friendships and social gatherings. It works in a million different spaces, but somehow a road can't be built without government...lol!
Okay, they can have their roads (and the economy...for a while at least). As an anarchist, it is my job to build bridges - bridges of understanding, that illuminate people's heuristics and biases, and show them that for all intents and purposes, they are already anarchists...they just have to come out of the closet and let go of all this silly government nonsense:)
I think most people don't understand what anarchy means and think it means chaos.
I think this applies to many different things...I figured out long ago that if I ask people what randomness and/or chaos are, I would get disjointed gibberish and not a real answer.
When discussing anarchy with others, I use terms like freedom or Providence (when speaking with Christians), to avoid negative baggage the term anarchy carries.
lol that is total bs and ignorance. anarchy works in cells? wtf?
Why is it bs? If you can explain, we can have a proper discussion:)
It's just a weak metaphor that everyone is reacting to. It's hard to believe that one of my liver cells is autonomous, exercises free will and voluntarily does its job. Every cell in the body is essentially born into a caste, given a set task, and operates as a drone doing that task until the day it dies, all under the blanket of a very specific set of hard coded rules. The functioning of the human body on a cellular level does not scream anarchy to me.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct. And from our limited perspective, they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
The difference between the two is that government does such an incredibly crappy job.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
You mean science?
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
No, I did not say that.
So do you.
Apples and oranges. I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
Doesn't mean cells have instincts.
Yet it strongly suggests causal determinism, which translates to hard determinism for that which is not or has not been in contact with free agents. Both scientists and philosophers do not think cells are free agents. Some even think animals aren't free agents. Now if cells aren't free agents, pointing to them as an example of working anarchism is ludicrous since anarchism, or any political leaning concerns only free agent subjects.
Yeah, except I didn't assert what anarchism seems to me to use as an argument. You did. I'm simply rebutting your actual, yet weak, arguments in favor of anarchism and making explicit where you're using non-arguments.
Yeah, but only thinking cannot free you from slavery.
Okay, give me one example for healing our bodies. And don't point the transition from witchcraft and superstition to science unless you have an idea of what would replace science (two dots don't make a trend).
First of all, I didn't intend to attack you, apologies and respect. But what you present as an argument for your case is nonsense. The way cells work do not resemble anarchy in any shape or form. All cells are made first initial cell that gets divided and multiplied as to form various organs and the whole body. As all of this process is going on instructions in DNA are being executed. Without DNA code cells can't do anything. Under that one code each cell knows what to do and how to react at various situations.
Just describing what humans do as a representation of anarchy is wrong as well. You wan't to let of government, so you need to talk in those terms. Show me examples of societies or communities that work under anarchy? Show me why it is better? You can't. That's why I say your point of view is just noise and complaining, without offering any better alternative. Once you can offer a better alternative to governance maybe then people would start paying attention. Until then it is just noise.
The reason I said bs was because your initial argument was completely wrong. You can't just take something that is wrong and use it to make the idea of anarchy good or already existent.
Good luck.
I don't know for what type of anarchy you all talking about in here, but it happened already and it was not easy to maintain.
Anarchy is the state of nature. There is no state in nature. Ecology leads to spontaneous order in an ecosystem. There is no monopolistic regulator determining the interactions between trees, fungi, birds, small mammals, etc...
that is what you like to think.
Emergent order can be hierarchical
It is amazing how most people don't see the hypocrisy in their way of thinking.
Yes! But it's how humans are built. It takes deliberate thinking about thinking for people to recognize some of their own inconsistencies and most aren't willing to do that.
yeap, just from some of these responses, I can tell that people are not even reading the posts.
Yep...unfortunately
It is amazing how you upvote somebody because he agrees with you when gives you total bs with anarchy of trillions of cells in our body. That is complete ignorance. But ok, just sad.
I would upvote you if you would express an actual viewpoint, instead of attacking mine. I welcome disagreement and I like debate and discussion. If you would like to engage in some, I would love that.
but it is true. There are 7 billion people on earth each doing their own thing and yet we think that governments control their ways. He made a good parallelism. the whole of governments come from the false perception that there is some kind of order. I also explain that in the article.
you didn't read it.
Please stop with you did't read thing. Just because I disagree (respectfully) doesn't mean I didn't read. Just for that I had to read it again, just to make sure.
It seems to me you are blinded with your own point of view and not even considering opposite opinion. But when you see something that is supportive of your idea, you embrace it even though foundation was based flawed argument.
Just because you see corruption and misuse of powers doesn't mean they are living in anarchy. Depending of societies, there are many various ways of keeping government in check. Sure governments will never be perfect, but the will be improved as times goes on. Improvement and changes been done through the human history. That's why we have democracies. It is not perfect, but it is best form of government we have.
You see reading your article all I hear is complaining complaining and saying "top elite is enjoying anarchy, why don't we do the same". That is not true. If there is abuse of power that is corruption not anarchy. Even then, lets say you are right, and they are doing whatever they want, you would really want to impose that to everybody???
Do you just think letting go of government all of the sudden will take us to happy-land? Look around the world, give me one example of anarchic society that offers better life to people. Look in the history, give me one example of anarchic society that offered better life to people.
In a way it is dangerous idea. People carry tribalistic character, and stick with people of same idea. In a society you propose (with no government) who is going to protect the weak? who is going to protect the minority? You wouldn't care about that, because you too busy complaining, and don't bother giving viable alternative that would work better. If you can't offer anything better, why should we listen?
It is one thing to criticize the government and elite, seeking improvements and another to ask to get rid of it. Once you do that you should be able to provide an better alternative that works for all. Until you do that, it is just noise.
Just because 7 billion people have their own way of thinking we need governance. We need common ground that everybody has fair plain field to live. Thats why we form governments and social contracts. To make sure everybody is protected regardless of idea, differences and status. That is why we have social contract. It is a necessity, but always needs improvements. That is called progress.
You talk about hypocrisy, but really you are being hypocritical. You are embracing those idea that side with you and praise your post, while brushing off the opposite view and saying "oh you just haven't read it". Only up-voting the comments that side with your point of view, just shows how bad anarchy would be for most. People would tend to take care of their own (whatever it is in their mind) and weak would be abused.
Anyway, good talking. I disagree but respect :)
What a dumb comparison. Cells in our bodies aren't free agents.
Well, you don't have to be an anarchist to agree with that. There are many things the government should simply stay out of. Although, it seems to me that we need some sort of government to uphold justice when it comes to wrongdoing concerning sex. Not to mention deciding who gets custody of the child in case of a divorce. And concerning marriage, it would lose most of its function without government.
Well, I don't like public schools either.
Friendships and social gatherings are rather natural. Why would government ever need to be involved in that?
Well, I'm for privatized toll roads, as long as they're affordable (like the toll roads in the US, and unlike the 407 in Ontario). This means no monopolies on routes from point A to B. If there are no monopolies, then unbuilt and unrepaired roads directly affect these private company's profits. But who would make sure a monopoly doesn't arise?