I'm going to be honest when I hear someone say they are an anarchist I cringe a little and immediately picture a juvenile adolescent that wants to live in a post-apocalyptic world like a Mad Max movie.
Seeing so many people introduce themselves as anarchists here on Steemit has made me wonder if there is something I'm missing and perhaps I should better educate myself on what anarchists tenants are and if they are at all realistic.
On another note are we not living in the result of anarchy already? I mean there was no government, laws and order prior to us creating them. Didn't humanity already choose order over chaos? Why wouldn't a reset to anarchy just lead straight back to government and order like we have now?
Please let me know your thoughts. I pride myself in being open minded and am looking for an honest and educational dialogue.
PS: I like GIFs, I have a problem. Don't judge me!
I would ask all the natives who lived on the lands that were conquered by so called "civilized" people. Research "Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota" where 297 Sioux Indians were slaughtered. Men, women and children. And the media keeps pounding the drums about Florida being the biggest slaughter in American history. They have a short memory.
The rules of life are very simple. Do no harm to others and do not interfere with another persons ability to live life as they see fit. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
Mad Max is propaganda to make us believe that that is how we would all behave if big brother wasn't looking out for us. Quite the opposite is true. Take away the overlords and their restrictions, taxation, imprisonment and people will take care of each other.
I hear there are places in the world today that have little to no govt and that they are prospering.
"Mad Max is propaganda to make us believe that that is how we would all behave if big brother wasn't looking out for us. Quite the opposite is true. Take away the overlords and their restrictions, taxation, imprisonment and people will take care of each other."
That's kind of what I was speaking to in my second point. Don't you think that eventually as social problems arise government will naturally tend to grow until you end up something similar to what we see today?
"I hear there are places in the world today that have little to no govt and that they are prospering."
Can you give a few examples?
You would see community governments run by private businesses payed for by the people. The businesses could expand and create a monopoly on those service and by eliminating competition yes they could form somewhat of a government if the people allowed them to. However without restrictions on the market other companies could easily take business and decrease the size of the company creating a monopoly and we could control this ourselves, not through politicians
That still sounds like what we have now or have already had in the past on our road to now. Company, democratic government or dictator warlord they all represent a controlling entity empowered by use of violence if necessary.
How is a private business paid for by the community different from an elected government taxing the community? What is to stop the natural tendency of corporate monopolization without an overarching regulatory framework to monitor it?
A police officer now does his job even when a law is not acceptable to the community. It's his job and he's getting paid whether the community likes it or not because the government forces you to pay for their services. If there were no central force of power then no one could force you to pay for their services. If a security company is patrolling your streets without a government they aren't going to do it for free. If they can't force you to pay them they must uphold the contract that you have signed authorizing them to protect your property. If they don't you wouldn't have to pay them. If they overstep their boundaries you don't have to pay them. You can actually hold them accountable and have an officer fired and black listed for breaking contract. If the company doesn't out a corrupted worker they all lose a contract. If they don't protect you when they should the same goes. If my internet was always down I would stop paying the provider and find a company that would keep my internet active. Same with services you see in the government now if they were made private. This causes competition which means you get better services, when you aren't forced to pay they have to give you a reason to want to. It is very similar to what we have now, basically the same exact thing. But when the government owns something you will pay for it. When private interests own it they must sell it to you which gives you a choice and without freedom of choice you are a slave.
This is the first one I found with a quick google search. I have heard there are some cities in China and other places but I will have to track down information on them.
You might also consider looking into how all govt's across the face of the earth are corporation. That our birth certificate is a bond. This rabbit hole goes deep. Red or Blue pill?
Anarchists are people who believe in freedom, in peace, in leaving each other alone. The images that come to mind for you are, as you said, based in media. Media that was created & mass-distributed by people who are very much NOT anarchists (6 corporations all together), people whose very positions of "power" and "authority" are based on the threat of violence, limiting the freedom of others, and trying to control other peoples' lives. The "anarchists" that are shown throwing bricks through windows and such have almost always been on the government payroll.
Even though I myself am an anarchist, I gave you an upvote for your post because it seems like even though you don't understand what anarchists are about, you're at least willing to look into it and consider why so many people here are introducing themselves as anarchists. That is a lot more than most statists are willing to do.
Most anarchists, like myself, live by the non aggression principle. This basically means that we believe it is wrong to act with force unless acted upon with force. So to be afraid of us is actually kind of funny to me. Anarchists are not people with a stash of moltovs in their closet, we are usually people who see that governments cause more harm than good, if any good at all. They are systems of control, and even though we like to think the men and women running them have our interests in mind, it is obvious when you look at their actions rather than listening to their words, that they do not. You shouldn't be afraid of anarchists and should definitely look into our philosophies. We find non government solutions to the worlds problems that actually work and make the world a better place. I recommend looking in to anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, I am a capitalist and see no real difference between the two. One is the exchange of value and the other is the assumption of value exchange. You still have to work to build society in either way so I really don't think it matters. Money just provides a good incentive and a way to prove value has been created by the individual rather than assuming.
I would suggest checking out Larken Rose and Jeff Berwick (Anarchast on youtube) as well as Adam Kokesh. Very popular anarchists, do some research on anarchy. It does not mean chaos, the root of the word really only mean no rulers (an=no archy=rulers). What us anarchists want is peace, love, and freedom, and we believe that no person should have more rights than any other and that government is inherently a violation of peoples rights.
The video in this one is worth watching. https://steemit.com/politics/@larkenrose/choosing-the-battleground
It would appear mankind is incapable of not having leaders though. Either by choice or not. Seems to me it's hardwired into us willfully follow a leader or on the other side of the coin to conquer a people and make them follow you.
It certainly isn't hardwired into people in general to want to conquer other people. Only a few people in this world actually want to personally control other people, and they already do. They are elected by the people who want to indirectly control other people. None of that is hardwired into humans though. It's a learned behavior that people end up adopting because they are surrounded by it everyday in the current system we have. Most anarchists believe that anarchy is something people will eventually evolve into. We have to make government obsolete and replace the things people want a government to provide. We are doing that already to some extent with crypto-currencies and other technology. You know it was two anarchists that created Steemit right?
I wouldn't be so certain of that. We are indeed hardwired to distrust those outside of our tribe it's not difficult for our hardwired tribal nature to lead to war and conquest.
I didn't know Dan and Ned were anarchists but it also doesn't surprise me at all. I've been around the cryptocoin scene since Emu socks were the only thing you could buy so I'm well aware of the cultural cross over.
When I follow the train of thought about all the solutions required for various social issues it seems like we always arrive at something very similar to what we already have. So similar that I wonder why not just try to improve the current government to be more like what you desire rather than espouse abolishing it?
Anarchism, properly understood, is just the consistent application of common sense moral principles. Most anarchists base their beliefs on the Non-Aggression Principle, which states that no one has the right to initiate force against another. This, in turn, is based on the principles of self-ownership and inviolable private property rights. So to initiate force against someone's person (murder, assault, rape, kidnapping, slavery) or property (theft or fraud) is ethically wrong. This does not preclude the use of defensive force. Most people recognize these principles in their daily lives, but the anarchist recognizes that the institution known as the State must, by definition, violate this Non-Aggression Principle. It must make use of taxation, which is the taking of private property by force or the threat thereof (theft), and holds a monopoly of ultimate decision making in a territorial area (which necessitates violations of the right of property owners to decide their own rules on their own property). The reason that people often think that anarchy=chaos is because they conflate the State with society. You're right in saying that human kind has already chosen order over chaos. Widely-accepted norms such as those outlined by the Non-Aggression Principle are recognized as valid regardless of legislation; that's why we can differentiate between good law and bad law. State legislation is not needed for this discernment of justice within a society.
Many serious thinkers throughout history have been anarchists. Modern anarchism of the libertarian strain, such as I'm referring to here, and in contrast to former brands of socialist anarchism, is simply an extension of western classical liberalism. If you want to learn more, there's a wealth of information at Mises.org and the Mises YouTube channel. It's not just revolutionary-minded kids in their mother's basements. Anarchism as a philosophy has a long and very interesting history.
In other words, anarchism is primarily concerned with the use of force in society. The State is an institution that relies on the initiation of force, and so is seen as illegitimate. Anarchism does not reject social organization or leadership. It only insists that such relationships be voluntary and not coercive.