Topic: What anarchy isn't (Read 852 times)

Beautifully put.

^ You'd want to respond to the logic of the video, unless you are letting others (authority figures, such as Wikipedia [which relies on "reliable" ("authoritative") sources]) decide for you.

Anarchy is not a system, or an ideology, or a utopian idea. It's a description of the natural order.



Too vague. If your thinking operates under unclear definitions, then you are an easy pray for mind control. "Certain social rules and cohesion" do not need to be violently enforced by a gang of people calling themselves government.


Assumption after assumption. The blockchain technology is already in the process of rendering obsolete the need for authority-based (hence violence-premised) centralized systems. That you imagine that "any idea of a society without a central government is too utopic and too far away to the current reality" is just that, an imagined limitation.

Since the OP doesn't contain any text, it's hard to know exactly what to respond to.  However, I can say that for anyone who wants to find out more about anarchy, the wikipedia has a wonderful series dedicated to all the main flavors of anarchic thought, including, for example, anarcho-capitalism---which sounded like an oxymoron to me until I read the article.  Cheers!

Ideology isn't good for much more than another slot under a person's identity saying "This is the kind of upbringing I got and how much I understand it."  There's nothing to convince people about anarchy; as you can see, the response "It's too utopian/extreme" has absolutely no logical merit: it's akin to saying the theory of relativity is too extreme to be practical, it makes no sense: it's either true, or it is false.  However, ideology has special protections from the true/false dichotomy due to its global conceptual status as being similar to a religion: you can't be wrong or right about how you feel the way the world should be run.  There was also a time when you couldn't be wrong about the shape of the world: not only was there no standard to base this knowledge on for most (despite the discovery of it being not-flat was made quite a time ago), but it's also perfectly acceptable to believe in something you cannot prove.  This hasn't changed from the beginning of early civilization: people today happily and willingly reject the foundations of logic and reason if it means protecting their personal biases: advancements in science are acceptable only under the condition you don't make people feel uncomfortable about their irrationalities.  You can still refuse to be wrong about the shape of the world if you decide to base your reasons inconsistently, i.e. gnosticism, but for those who are consistent with their views, it's impossible to do so.

With all that said, I'll point this out: anarchy, in its most modern incarnation as removed from its initial socialistic fantasy origins, can be thought of as much an ideology as atheism can be thought of as a religion (we know this to be true once the paradox of the state is successfully dismantled in a person's mind, there's nothing left but self-governance), and both can be considered in the same way as before: only useful for pointing out what an individual's biases are, and in the case of both, biased towards facts and reason, as opposed to the many flavors of emotional responses coming from the others.  While it is becoming the default political position of an individual who has, despite the mountains of propaganda being poured on him from before he could reason and onward, accepted the merits of empiricism and no longer accepts what he learned as a child to be the unmistakable truth, it seems to take a special type of person to care enough to get to this point of understanding; it's not something that'll come naturally from your average religious/liberal household.  Everyone agrees that anarchy is impossible, and because they only think of anarchy as yet another ideology, rather than an empirical stance on politics, it's assumed that you can democratically vote something to being practical or impractical, or true or false, possible or impossible.  You can vote something into being true, all you must do is find enough people to agree with you; but it's only possible if you have no principles developed from philosophy which would otherwise stop you and tell you that you actually can't do that.

From this, we can conclude that the only role of today's anarchist is to continue to push for logical and ethical consistency, to proselytize empiricism, philosophy, curiosity and diplomacy, and to raise their own children in the way they wish the world to behave: as adults.  There is a genuine desire in today's men and women to force others to bend to their will, as their parents and government forced them, and as their parents and governments forced them; what's fair is fair, and now "it's their turn."  Somebody, however, down the road, needs to break the cycle, and through philosophy, we see why the benefits of doing so far outweigh the short-term gain of getting a chance at being the bully.  So long as we advance as a species, so will the anarchy "movement" continue.

Anarchy movements are only mass of manobre for the big fishis, like the communists.

Any idea of a society without a central government is too utopic and too far away to the current reality, that they end up being used by other movements with more realistic and implementable ideas

False anarchy is chaos.  True anarchy is peace.

LIGHTS!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmWs6Jf5dc

The anarchic island should be called Utopia.

Certain social rules and cohesion are needed for a healthy functional society.

Anarchy is too far of an extreme to build our society and community on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoPBDz5ycA