(no subject)
In reply to "Greg."
It is not just the doctrine of defiance and the sugar-plum dreams of opposition of these self-proclaimed "rebels" that inhibit anarchy from being a true ideal. It is the fact that such an "ideal," if that even, is not only completely flawed, but impossible to obtain.
The ol' saying, "Nature abhors a vacuum" comes into mind here. And the perpetuation of anarchy itself would likely (if not inevitably) result in such a scenario. When power is eliminated, then power replaces itself.
By the word of the "Social Contract" itself, anarchy is the state of nature. Yes, in the beginning, humans lived in little groups. They were slightly organized in some ways, but archaic nonetheless. This of course, as you can only imagine, was not only dangerous, but left room for great malevolence. Why? Because it is only human nature. It is only natural for humans to follow their primordial instincts; in this case, such instincts were to take and not be taken from. It is also natural of most humans, although not all, to be mischievous. Just admit it. Picking on the little guy is fun.
Thus, our ancestors formed little groups, formed the "social contract." If you don't club Larry on the head, than you will do good and everyone will like you. The end.
Nature does not allow for such vacuums to occur. Along with any sort of intelligence (as little as we may possess) there must be order. We are no longer subject to Darwinism, therefore it is only natural for us to also want protection for ourselves and others. There is no feasible system that could include technology, intelligence, and anarchy. It just isn't possible, and I agree with you, I'm sick of hearing all this talk about such a ludicrous idea. It's not an ideal; it is merely an attempt to rebel against the current system, whatever that system may be at any given time.
In fact, such a vacuum may leave the doors open for dictatorship, as it has in most cases. The Treaty of Versailles pushed Germany into complete and utter depression and chaos. They eventually slipped into anarchy...And so, who came to power? Well, a little man by the name of Adolf -- Adolf Hitler. Yes, the Hitler scenario is cliché and overdone, but it is the perfect example. Let your mind wonder and discover the proven end result of such vacuums.
Also, honestly, I think that these rebels would oppose the given system even if we finally obtained anarchy, even for a little while. Notice how you always hear of the flaws in the system -- meanwhile, they ignore the fact that if we were to eliminate these flaws, it would result in the rearing of brand new ones. For instance, yes, the death penalty appears to be morally wrong, and I agree. But then again, thousands and thousands of dollars are being spent on each and every prisoner every year. When faced with the overwhelming budget of America today, does the death penalty really seem like such a bad thing? Of course, you must take into account the source of the overwhelming deficit itself, but that's beside the point. There is a balance in every system, and there is no way to have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot have anarchy and still be safe.
And again, these fucking anarchists, in most cases, cannot seem to find anything feasible in any other system of government other than their own. And yes, anarchy is a system of government, by their standards and definitions. They don't take into account the benefits of other systems, because they prefer a complete lack of system itself. They simply find flaws in other systems in order to justify their so-called utopia. Sure, they sit chant that "if only humanity complied with good will, and everyone agreed upon anarchy, then there would be no rape, etc. etc.," yet, they just can't say the same about any other system. I mean, first, look at that statement. It is impossible for humanity to comply with such purity, and on top of that, they're contradicted themselves. Why? Well, usually these rebellious worms have this whole mantra about how oppressive government is and how they shouldn't be made to comply with someone else's ideas on how society should be run, how their freedom is downright suffering...yet they're pleading the same race of people to adhere to a completely new system of action and thinking?
Oops! You're a hypocrite!
And besides, any such statement could be made about any system of government. Not to say that such statements are completely ludicrous; it's just that their whole "of only" argument is completely and utterly flawed.
"Well, if everyone just accepted God, then this country could be run by the clergy, and we could attain religious unity!"
"Well, if everyone just treated one another equally and prevented power from arising, we could have successful communism!"
"If our entire society were of the ideal race and we imposed complete absolutism upon our country, then we could attain complete totalitarianism!"
The list goes on. There will be no change, as with the technology of today, a change in the system would result in its own collapse.
It is not just the doctrine of defiance and the sugar-plum dreams of opposition of these self-proclaimed "rebels" that inhibit anarchy from being a true ideal. It is the fact that such an "ideal," if that even, is not only completely flawed, but impossible to obtain.
The ol' saying, "Nature abhors a vacuum" comes into mind here. And the perpetuation of anarchy itself would likely (if not inevitably) result in such a scenario. When power is eliminated, then power replaces itself.
By the word of the "Social Contract" itself, anarchy is the state of nature. Yes, in the beginning, humans lived in little groups. They were slightly organized in some ways, but archaic nonetheless. This of course, as you can only imagine, was not only dangerous, but left room for great malevolence. Why? Because it is only human nature. It is only natural for humans to follow their primordial instincts; in this case, such instincts were to take and not be taken from. It is also natural of most humans, although not all, to be mischievous. Just admit it. Picking on the little guy is fun.
Thus, our ancestors formed little groups, formed the "social contract." If you don't club Larry on the head, than you will do good and everyone will like you. The end.
Nature does not allow for such vacuums to occur. Along with any sort of intelligence (as little as we may possess) there must be order. We are no longer subject to Darwinism, therefore it is only natural for us to also want protection for ourselves and others. There is no feasible system that could include technology, intelligence, and anarchy. It just isn't possible, and I agree with you, I'm sick of hearing all this talk about such a ludicrous idea. It's not an ideal; it is merely an attempt to rebel against the current system, whatever that system may be at any given time.
In fact, such a vacuum may leave the doors open for dictatorship, as it has in most cases. The Treaty of Versailles pushed Germany into complete and utter depression and chaos. They eventually slipped into anarchy...And so, who came to power? Well, a little man by the name of Adolf -- Adolf Hitler. Yes, the Hitler scenario is cliché and overdone, but it is the perfect example. Let your mind wonder and discover the proven end result of such vacuums.
Also, honestly, I think that these rebels would oppose the given system even if we finally obtained anarchy, even for a little while. Notice how you always hear of the flaws in the system -- meanwhile, they ignore the fact that if we were to eliminate these flaws, it would result in the rearing of brand new ones. For instance, yes, the death penalty appears to be morally wrong, and I agree. But then again, thousands and thousands of dollars are being spent on each and every prisoner every year. When faced with the overwhelming budget of America today, does the death penalty really seem like such a bad thing? Of course, you must take into account the source of the overwhelming deficit itself, but that's beside the point. There is a balance in every system, and there is no way to have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot have anarchy and still be safe.
And again, these fucking anarchists, in most cases, cannot seem to find anything feasible in any other system of government other than their own. And yes, anarchy is a system of government, by their standards and definitions. They don't take into account the benefits of other systems, because they prefer a complete lack of system itself. They simply find flaws in other systems in order to justify their so-called utopia. Sure, they sit chant that "if only humanity complied with good will, and everyone agreed upon anarchy, then there would be no rape, etc. etc.," yet, they just can't say the same about any other system. I mean, first, look at that statement. It is impossible for humanity to comply with such purity, and on top of that, they're contradicted themselves. Why? Well, usually these rebellious worms have this whole mantra about how oppressive government is and how they shouldn't be made to comply with someone else's ideas on how society should be run, how their freedom is downright suffering...yet they're pleading the same race of people to adhere to a completely new system of action and thinking?
Oops! You're a hypocrite!
And besides, any such statement could be made about any system of government. Not to say that such statements are completely ludicrous; it's just that their whole "of only" argument is completely and utterly flawed.
"Well, if everyone just accepted God, then this country could be run by the clergy, and we could attain religious unity!"
"Well, if everyone just treated one another equally and prevented power from arising, we could have successful communism!"
"If our entire society were of the ideal race and we imposed complete absolutism upon our country, then we could attain complete totalitarianism!"
The list goes on. There will be no change, as with the technology of today, a change in the system would result in its own collapse.