Anarchy

It seems to me that the biggest problem with an anarchist system is the size of populations. Take China or some other country of similar size, turn it anarchist, and you'd get complete chaos. Take some little self-sufficient town out in the middle of nowhere where everybody gets along pretty well, take away from it the influence of any kind of state or government, and that pretty much just takes away all the beauracratic crap they have to deal with.

Who's to say that people can't get along when a small community -- every single person who wants to live there -- decides to work for their own individual interests and yet agrees to trade their goods or whatever with each other according to their own judgement and terms, and everybody that decides to build this community has similar codes of ethics and philosophy that promote prosperity.

But with the way things are today, you'd have a lot of trouble going out somewhere and finding a spot of land worth settling such a community on that's not already controlled by some government; to my knowledge, at least.

Now why couldn't that logically work? I don't buy this pessimistic crap that people simply can't work with each other in a way where everyone is capable of their own happiness in an environment of complete freedom. I don't buy that not everyone has that drive and ambition somewhere in 'em. I think it just seems otherwise today because of the cultures that come from the influence of a large population: all of this welfare and handout culture.

What are your views, 4chan? Discuss.

In anarchy where every person is for oneself, the strongest will end up taking other's share. Thus inequality will still occur. Anarchy is simply a pathway to dictatorship.

>>2

That's the 6th grader's version of it. You need to either do more reasearch about Anarchy or lurk more.

>>2
Believe it or not, not everybody is out to screw everybody else for their own benefit, as opposed to operating on a mutual understanding of how they benefit from each other on individual terms. Just my opinion, but I think that view shows a lack of self-esteem.

>>1

Yes exactly. I used to be an anarchist until I realised that. Anarchy works nicely in small groups, but something deeply disturbing happens when you try to apply it to large ones. I don't really know what. Maybe people can only emphatize with a limited amount of people. Or maybe it's that large groups get divided into smaller groups that have conflicting goals. Maybe people are just dumb. In any case, anarchy will never work on a large scale, but it's awesome to practice it among select friends.

OMG this is so fucking stupid. As for the China analogy...Only the current COMMUNIST government of China views China as "one gigantic population". By the very nature of Chinese culture, they dice themselve up into smaller groups. The only thing we need is fair fully democratic, non-beaucratic law and fair individuals willing to enforce the law.

>>1 " ... or some other country of similar size"
I was speaking in generality.

"The only thing we need is fair fully democratic, non-beaucratic law and fair individuals willing to enforce the law."

Democracy leads to beauracracy. It's inevitable. For most people, when they get the feel of authoritative power, they want to keep that power and mold the law toward their own objectives... No matter how inconvenient, ridiculous, or just plain stupid it is for the citizens their laws are supposed to protect. It's all about bringing home the bacon and staying in power to politicians.

well, then we need to get rid of politicians then don't we?

>>5  Maybe people can only emphatize with a limited amount of people.

This hits the nail right on the head.  It's easy to control your actions when you see the consequences immediately and locally; jim loses the shirt of his back, you feel bad about it, and everyone you know scowls at you whenever they walk by until you make amends. 

But in such a large group, you don't know who you're affecting, nobody knows you did anything, therefore, you can feel guilt free.  In such a large group, the usual ties that keep you in line, the ones the human race evolved to use aren't there anymore.

That's why we need some government.  I'm not a big government supporter, and I agree that some people will become parasites (it's a natural thing that happens, it's why parasite is a natural designation of an organism) no matter what, and that some people will be "disefranchised".  But that's OK.  At least the system we have rewards those who provide the most most of the time. 

>>9
There was a theory that humans can only accommodate about ~140 relationships. Once a group of people becomes larger than that, we can not longer keep track of everyone.

Surprisingly, this theory has some evidence to back it up.

>>2-10
... What, no hateful rhetoric? No irrelevant sidetracking or biased nonsense? No resentment-fueled declarations of stupidity upon my person?
What kind of thread is this? o.o
*Pleasantly surprised*

You're a fag, John. Now shut up and stop inviting flames with asinine remarks.

Ah. So my evil plan is working.

>>13
Not it's not.  John is a wonderful contributor to this forum.

>>14
stik to ur own name john

>>14
Uh, 13 *was* me. e.e
14 wasn't.

JOHN PARADOX?

>>16
gay..

>>2
You could say the same thing about democracy.  Right now we have this system where the people who can lie and cheat the best rise in political power.  This isn't a fault of our population, but a fault of the system itself. 

One thing to think about is why wouldn't a large population simply break into smaller groups?  Why would China have to stay as a whole nation under anarchy, and would this be a bad thing? 

Size is a problem for all forms of government.  Take the U.S.: right now there is an average of 646,952 citizens per representive.  This has grown considerably since the signing of the Constiution.  IMO I feel that we have simply grown too large to even be considered a represenative government.  The same problems happen in socialism and communism which I can delve into if needed.

So if this is a problem in all forms of government we must show which would be better at handaling changes of population.  It doesn't seem that the U.S. is capable of this.  It was only last election that people brought up the idea of secession.  At the very least this path should be explored fully.  Would it really be that bad if California broke away from the union?  It is not like there wouldn't still be trade. 

>>19
60000 was the amount of votes needed for someone to get into the weimar republic of Germany circa 1918 -> 1933.

Bird flu pandemic ftw, amirite?

>>21
WTF DOES THE FLU PANDEMIC OF 1918-1919 HAVE TO DO WITH THIS YOU CRAZY FUCK? IT WAS A HUMAN FLU PANDEMIC NOT AN AVIAN FLU ASWELL YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

>>22
lol attentiondeficitdisorder :B

If we can divide former territories into districts, and even metropolitan cities into districts, I see no reason why representative voting blocks can't get the same treatment. 60000 sounds like a good number, divide the spots into smaller bundles around 60k, maybe 20k for rural areas.

>>24
Okay, let's just say 60k citizens per represenative.  If the U.S. population is around 300,000,000 then that works out to 5000 represenatives in the House.  At this point sessesions would just be too long and nothing would get done.  Although the prospect of a legislature not being able to do anything is inticing, most people would agree that they should be able to pass some laws.

>>25

Sessesion would be too long only under the government we have now. Things have to radically changed from the ground up.

Why not have a hierarchy, each step branching off to 80 people

1: President
2: Ministers and governors
3: Secretaries
4: Civil servants
5: Government employees (here the 80 rule ends, unless more than 40000000 people work for the government)
6: Citizens

Imagine that, a conversation with your friend who drills holes in the road could be only 4 steps away from the president!

>>24-27
You're all missing the point... é_è

I HAVE HAD AN EPIPHANY!!!!
CHANGE PRESIDENT EVERY DAY! EVERYONE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT! :D
Result: Civilised anarchy.

>>28
no u

>>29
What if more than 365.25 people are born a year?

>>30
I have an idea of my own, that idea + UFC!
most asskickingest redneck gets presidency. At least you'll know you won't get a floofypants wussy like Bush and Clinton whose answer to everything in life is throw money at it.

>>29
We'd end up in a situation where nobody would want to be president. When the computer selects you for the dubious honor, you'd try to get out of it. Since under anarchy, everything would come under "a one person one vote," the office of the president would be reduced to the symbolic or maybe just plodding clerical work. It would be like having to stay behind to clean the blackboard after school.

>>31
Right now we have floofypants wussies that are forced to act like asskickingest rednecks. When we have asskickingest rednecks as presidents, will they be forced to act like floofypants wussies?

>>31
Select a few US army special forces and navy special forces aswell, maybe a few fighter pilots. That would work, finally the US will have achieved true flawless democracy. Liberty and utilitarianism walking hand in hand to a bright future.It would be historic!

>>33
Yes, Yes! A military dictatorship would be the pinnacle of Liberty™! Hail, hail, the US military-industrial complex!

Hello Anarchists, I'm going to ask you this question once and I don't want you to bullshit, just give me a straight answer.

What practical way is there to achieve Anarchy?

There is always going to be someone vying for power.

Anarchy is for wingnuts who can't accept that people reject their ideas not because they have "closed minds" and need to "open their eyes", but because their ideas are fucking retarded.

>>35
Okie-doke. You ask that question as if you disagree with the idea of anarchy, so I'm going to ask you this question in reply:
What practical way is there to achieve ANY type of government? There is no way to rule people without sacrifice, dissention and blood unless you turn em all into robots. And when you do end up ruling them, how much more good are you really achieving at the price of life? Men are not robots. Stop the attempts at individuals or groups that want to grab power over people, and you get rid of the mass blood at the hands of the heads of so-called states. How practical is it to try and rule people with such human natures present as opposed to letting people rules themselves in their own groups by their own rules without a named leadership? Anarchy is not the abscence of peace, just as peace is not the abscence of dissention. Let people work it out.
It is my observation that governments do little more than create dependency among their populations, and kill the populations of other governments, all at the hands of the few people that want to rule those populations, while the people themselves want to simply live in peace. Anarchy is not the abscence of peace, just as peace is not the abscence of dissention.

>>38
HOLY FUCK I CAN';T BELIEVE I WASTED MY LIFE READING THAT. yOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT

IN MY POST I LAREADY MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBJECTIVES YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE AND WHAT HAPPENS IN PRACTICE

IN FUCKING PRACTICE, THE UTILITY OF CERTAIN IDEAS AND SYSTEMS IN REAL LIFE, TRYING TO ACHIEVE REALISTIC OBJECTIVES WITH IDEAS WHICH WORK ETC

*breathe breathe*

Fuck it, im not even going to bother..

someone else answer my question please

>>5
it's group mentality
when people are in a group, they tend to think as one
add more people to the group and the group becomes more irrational

Cool, an anarchism thread. I'm an anarchist and it annoys me how many people seem to subscribe to various myths about it.

Kropotkin was the only cool anarchist. Emma Goldman had some good points, but she was such a stuck-up bitch (although, living in those times and with her ideas, one can hardly blame her)

>>39

cruise control for cool

>>40
>>41

Thanks for proving >>37's point.

I still don't get anarchism. Let's say anarchism became popular in the US or in your state or whatever and people voted in an anarchist government.

Tell me what you think would happen during their term in office.

>>45

You are an idiot.

>>46
Copy paste what you think I don't understand, then you can call me an idiot without joining the ranks of the millions of random insults generated by the internet every second.

>>47
"An anarchist government" wouldn't be in power. You would. And so would everybody else. What would happen? That depends on what you, and I, and all of us collectively decide should happen. If you are affected by a decision, you should have a say in it.

That depends on what you, and I, and all of us collectively decide should happen.

Pretty obvious what will happen, isn't it?

Anarchism would have to somehow defy all our instincts and prior history to become an effective system. Somehow I'm not impressed with the thought of living under warlords.

>>49

What you are implying is only "Pretty obvious" if you or some else has plans on becoming a warlord. Take stock of the warlords and supposed rulers of the world. In an anarchy- we outnumber them.

>>48
So the Anarchist party gets elected, how do they make anarchy a reality? Do they simply not issue any orders or collect any tax? Surely not, who would fund the police, health and fire services?

>>50
if you or some else has plans on becoming a warlord

Yeah, that's a problem, isn't it?

In an anarchy- we outnumber them.

And right now we don't. Right.

>>47

que?