141–150 of 839 posts
Humans having been living without so called governments or police for millions of years. The perfect anarchist world would have happened by now if it actually worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem - people can't easily change countries nowadays (and even before borders, I bet traveling that far was cost prohibitive). So you end up in the situation where you have to follow rules of the contract, which you did not explicitly agreed to
If anarchists are anarchists, they shouldn't be cowed by "top down" rules, they should be able to find a way round them, to suit themselves, without destroying themselves. So that it's "not easy" to change countries shouldn't stop an "anarchist" because they're all about negotiation, personal responsibility and choice, and freedom right? Anarchists shouldn't be people crying in the streets how unfair it is that "big…
Your attempt at describing everything as voluntary misses that when we talk about something being voluntary, we expect it to be free of coercion. The threat of jail is coercive.
This is a typical left-right distinction where the left are concerned with de facto ability to exercise choice where the right are focused on de jure technical possibility of exercising choice.
As such anarchists argue for the dismantling and destruction of coercive power structures that prevents people from having the de facto ability to exercise free choices.
Anyone who has ever lived in a share house (or next to one) knows that without laws civilization will descend into absolute chaos and endless tit for tat revenge warfare. Try parenting with anarchist principles. At some point you run into limits. The point is, what imposes those limits? Physics, gravity, society or yourself? Ideally the limits you put on yourself should mean you never encounter (negatively or destruc…
I think you got downvoted for the last paragraph, because otherwise, your post has a solid point and I am sure describes worldview of many people. I yet to decide for myself on the topic. Just a random thought related to your post - while not making a mistake appears to be important from the individual and perhaps humanity side, it is not necessarily important for there life as the whole (I don't know that, just one…
I think anarchism might be one of those ideologies, that has been misused by rabble rousers to get foot soldiers to do street violence for some cause where the strings are pulled by higher ups. Probably this is a perversion of the true ideals of anarchists, so it's hard today to tell what those are.
But to anyone reading it who thinks of themselves as an anarchist, you'll down vote because it's true and instantly disproves your cherished anarchist ideals, so to protect yourself and your worldview from that you need to pretend it's wrong.
I get it and that's OK for you to do that for you. :) I'm not saying this here for you. I'm saying this here for me. It's a big world out there. Plenty of room for different opinions and experiences.
It's not possible to change people's minds on the internet. They change if they're ready themselves, nothing to do with me, or people respond with hostility to new/unfamiliar information, it doesn't matter if it's correct, like me saying anarchists get arrested for stupid shit, but then explained away as "not true anarchists". I'm not writing here to discuss with people or try to contribute to their perspectives. I'm just writing my points for myself. If people agree with me, I think it's low value because the idea was not new enough. If people disagree, downvote or fight with me, I think it's a waste of my time. Either way, it's a waste of time to engage with others online about ideas. But I think it's good for me to write, but not necessarily put it up here. Sometimes I do tho because I think I like to see my point recorded publicly. I guess that's just vanity, and meaningless. Maybe I should stop that. The noise of agreement or fighting is meaningless. What matters is to think for yourself. Who cares what other people think about ideas? They will be hostile if your ideas is outside their ken, and meaninglessly agreeable otherwise. Either way, your idea should have value to you in your knowing of it. It shouldn't be about them.
I realized I wasted so much time in the past "discussing" on online forums. Now I see it for what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're saying looks a lot like reform, not anarchy.
You seem functionally fixed cognitively. Sorry, anarchy is fire and brimstone! Mad Max living! Let’s go there! Does that feel better? Anarchism isn’t a thing. It can’t have one shape, and color. Like most things there’s nuance and philosophy to it that the popular memes, and a whole lot of popular writing, do not impart. Vague emotional colorings without functional concept. Anarchism is fine with collective social no…
I don't even understand what this means :-)
Does it mean that I'm rigid (obtuse?). Does it mean that I'm only focused on functional aspects (I also have no idea what this would mean...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assumption that people must behave better in the presence of authority - and therefore worse in the absence of it - is exactly the assumption that is under question.
They don't have to behave better in the presence of authority, they are forced to, that's kind of the point of authority :-)
I would argue thay society today involve s less tyrany, less authority, and is more peacefull.
"If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police? If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist!" No. This fails at scale. People are prosocial in small groups and in person but when this scales it goes away. This is a slight of hand the author is making to silently embed a false premise into the argum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anarchists are not an alien species, nor is there an anarchistan yet. They live among us
I suspect that if an anarchistan would be created within a lifetime it would 'revert' to some other well known political framework, either a democracy or a dictatorship. If there was an anarchistan in recent history it was a probably Somalia and even there you now find a regular government.
“Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to.” My anarchist sympathies want this to be true but this is a demonstrably false fairy tale. Just look at how we treat the planet and other living things in the presence of lawful order. Why would you assume that we would act righteously in the absence of law? It is painfully obvious th…
I see this when dispersed camping, simple things like cleaning up at the campsite before leaving. Most people don’t have a problem with it but there are small groups who don’t care about anything. Those small groups tend to ruin it for everyone. You don’t see that at managed campgrounds because you will be fined.
Thus proving the superiority of private property over the complete anarchy of the commons.
Reading this article it’s almost as if Graeber never looked at the world around him and saw how people behave when they see that law and order has broken down e.g. the London riots of 2010 where everyone ran to loot the nearest Foot Locker as soon as they realised no one would stop them.