The Strongest Evidence That Anarchy Works
"Anarchy could never work. The world will plunge into chaos. Humans need someone to oversee them."
This is the same mantra I have been hearing over and over again for as long as I can remember. Now, I am not going to that some form of organization is not needed in order for society to function. This is rather irrelevant. The point here is that anarchy already exists. In fact, it has existed for as long as our species have created civilizations 6.000 year ago. It has been working just fine. Just not all of us get to enjoy it.
We often wonder why people sitting in government offices get to do whatever they want. We wonder how and why big corporations and government officials always seem to be in bed with one another. Yet, after all the shit we are witnessing taking place in front of our eyes, we just say "It is what it is, and we need the government to protect us".
Anarchy has been working for government and corporatist officials alike. They are doing whatever they want, propagating to the rest that we need their order in order to survive. The people whom we accuse of so many things are the proof that anarchy works. They are not bound by their own rules. They create the rules for the rest. They control how rules are perceived and they have convinced everyone else that they have to follow rules while themselves get to stand above of it all.
And we have accepted this. We understand that this is how it is done. We understand that this is how they get to be in control. Yet, the statists and anarchy skeptics alike are being intellectually dishonest. Based on their assumption, those who control everything we eat, drink, hear and see are living anarchically. Effectively the entire world is ruled by chaos. They guide humanity based on their own whims for their own benefit and they don't even follow their own rules. Why do we possibly want them to control us other than a primal tribal instinct of group survivorship? What is the argument other than fear?
Why do we claim to be civilized living in a world of order when in fact everything has always been structured under seeming order? A lion tears a zebra apart. The world is orderly from its own perspective. Every lion is doing it right?
A politician changes a single policy and we suddenly have to send our children to a public schools for 15 years. Everyone is doing it. This is how things are. This is order, right? Anything else is chaos since every parent will be able to do whatever they want with their child and that scares the shit out of us. It never crosses our minds that the anarchic folk on top control the school system and they do whatever they want. It never crosses around minds that many children under state rule become mercenaries killing other human being. We are just afraid that homeschooling mind hard a child because parents are....irresponsible.
This hypocritical narrative applies to everything that comes from the government. We assume that chaotic communal practices are orderly because many people follow them and that they are "controlled" and "regulated". Anything else becomes chaos. This is the reason why religion is so important to us. The anarchic leaders on top that created these feel-good-and-fearful-stories give a sense of order to our lives. Same applies as with the presence of a government. We see some "references" from yet another anarchic authority that they have created and suddenly everything stops feeling "chaotic" and becomes "orderly".
It's not gonna happen. We are just too lazy, way too lazy.
I completely agree
It's not that we are lazy, its just that people tend to pick the better solution. If the structure of co-existence based on anarchy is created and better yet already working for someone somewhere other societies will adopt it. You can't expect people to give up there commodity, they worked so hard to get it. That ties with the last said in the post. People just don't want to think about "unnecessary" things. We gave up our freedom for a piece of mind. I touch upon that topic a bit in my recent post about our great alienation from the world. If you are interested check it out:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@drumsta/the-great-alienation
I doubt anarchy is a better option. The real issue is that we are blinded by our political and religious beliefs and majority of humans are good followers. For this majority to survive in a anarchist society will be hard and will result in violence.
There is plenty of anarchy in places like Africa and Syria. Do I want that type of society? No. Wishing for a free just society is still the best hope for me.
You are confusing anarchy with disorder. Anarchists societies can and likely would be ordered. The order, however, would develop at a small scale based on the interactions of individuals.
Additionally, how would those who decide to follow people be hard pressed to live in a stateless society? Would they not simply follow other individuals?
The issue with the blind followers is that they lack the experiences and the effective judgement to evaluate their responses. It gets hard to scale anarchy. The best we can hope for individualist anarchy driven by intellectuals to help advance the creation of a just society.
In your ideal, the less capable or willing would still be following the lead of the so-called intellectuals. I don't see how what you are proposing is any different than my comment. There will always be people - probably a majority - that would rather go along to get along. It doesn't matter if there is a state or no state. That shouldn't deter anti-statists. If, when the dust settles, a majority want to just follow the lead of their local notables, so what? The key is that there is no coercive state, not that everyone is uniquely individualistic. That is an impossible goal - that turns anarchism into some sort of messianic religion awaiting the time of the intellectuals to lead the people out of sloth.
unless you have majority of population who are anarchists, you cant claim the society is anarchist. My point is it is extremely hard to get a plural majority of anarchists as most tends to be followers of order set by those in power or with influence. Saying a anarchist society will be ordered suggests a causative effect which wont be true.
Not necessarily. If the state were replaced tomorrow in a given geographical area with multiple options for various functions typically performed by governments (police, arbitration, schooling, etc...) and people had to pick which they used, the so-called followers could simply pick wantonly or follow someone else's opinion - much like people do for car insurance in the US. There would be no State regardless of whether or not the populace thought themselves to be anarchists. There would likely also be collusion amongst a subset of service providers to retain their markets (for policing, schooling, etc...); despite the inefficiency in such collusion, it would also apply a basic order to geographical region.
A plurality of the populace having anarchist views is not necessarily sufficient for anarchy; the availability and use of non-state alternatives to state activities is the required element. That may occur due to the work of an agitating minority and due to a weakness of the state as it inevitably deals with the aftermath of having to reckon with currency and debt issues. Minarchism and later anarchism may be foisted onto the people whether they want it or not.
thanks, very interesting and good counter argument.
But the point is not to force an "anarchist society" on people that couldn't handle it (as if that could even be possible), but to help people let go of the limiting beliefs that hold them to the present system, which brings so much institutionalized suffering with it.
Once people's attitudes evolve, the system of government in which they live will evolve too.
Every one of us is born as an anarchist, to an anarchist world, but our belief system, brought on by fear and insecurity, inflicts upon us this dysfunctional model of governance.
The question is: "Can people SURVIVE without rulers?"
The answer is: "We can THRIVE!"
We already live in anarchy, but we are not adapting to it successfully in some areas, due to our psychological troubles.
Look at Hamurg protest that is anarchists!
Anarchy works when it comes to trillions of cells in our body. It works in our love life and procreation (billions of people manage to fall in love, have sex, get married and have children without help from the government). It works with learning, skill acquisition, friendships and social gatherings. It works in a million different spaces, but somehow a road can't be built without government...lol!
Okay, they can have their roads (and the economy...for a while at least). As an anarchist, it is my job to build bridges - bridges of understanding, that illuminate people's heuristics and biases, and show them that for all intents and purposes, they are already anarchists...they just have to come out of the closet and let go of all this silly government nonsense:)
I think most people don't understand what anarchy means and think it means chaos.
I think this applies to many different things...I figured out long ago that if I ask people what randomness and/or chaos are, I would get disjointed gibberish and not a real answer.
When discussing anarchy with others, I use terms like freedom or Providence (when speaking with Christians), to avoid negative baggage the term anarchy carries.
lol that is total bs and ignorance. anarchy works in cells? wtf?
Why is it bs? If you can explain, we can have a proper discussion:)
It's just a weak metaphor that everyone is reacting to. It's hard to believe that one of my liver cells is autonomous, exercises free will and voluntarily does its job. Every cell in the body is essentially born into a caste, given a set task, and operates as a drone doing that task until the day it dies, all under the blanket of a very specific set of hard coded rules. The functioning of the human body on a cellular level does not scream anarchy to me.
You could say that our cells, like many animals, live on instinct. And from our limited perspective, they may SEEM less than free, but they look like they make it work:)
Anarchy, to me, is not just a political setup, but also the way life works. Every human being is born free, even when he/she is born as a slave (just because someone says they own you and use force to make it so doesn't mean you stopped having free will).
It is our beliefs that make us function as free people or as slaves.
When doctors give us medicine for our body, they are not healing us, but rather trying to find a way for the body to heal itself. The doctor is an instrument of inspiration for the body's self-healing, just like government is an instrument of inspiration for society's self-organization.
The difference between the two is that government does such an incredibly crappy job.
No, actually they're hard-coded to work the way they do.
You mean science?
What's your point here? Are you saying apparent freedom is inefficient?
Just cause anarchy to you is a certain way doesn't mean it is that way. You need facts and evidence that back up your view if you want to convince anyone.
So when some guy tries to rob a bank and says he'll shoot you if you move, is it simply your belief (that you will be killed if you move), or the very real threat of someone holding a gun to your head that keeps you from moving. Your trivializing actions to beliefs that are internal to us, when those beliefs are usually formed by experience external to us.
So, then, the medicine has no role? No, that's absurd. So according to you, then, the role of medcine is to enable our bodies to heal themselves. But if the medicine's role is to enable our body to heal itself, it is essentially healing us.
Instinct and genetic code are not mutually exclusive.
No, I did not mean science. Science cannot determine if a being is free or not. At least not yet.
No, I did not say that.
So do you.
Apples and oranges. I may not be able to stop a bullet with my mind, but as long as I can think freely, I am free.
I did not say that. My point was that we could decide to use other "inspiration", as we evolve our understanding of the body, to promote healing. So too with government and society.
Doesn't mean cells have instincts.
Yet it strongly suggests causal determinism, which translates to hard determinism for that which is not or has not been in contact with free agents. Both scientists and philosophers do not think cells are free agents. Some even think animals aren't free agents. Now if cells aren't free agents, pointing to them as an example of working anarchism is ludicrous since anarchism, or any political leaning concerns only free agent subjects.
Yeah, except I didn't assert what anarchism seems to me to use as an argument. You did. I'm simply rebutting your actual, yet weak, arguments in favor of anarchism and making explicit where you're using non-arguments.
Yeah, but only thinking cannot free you from slavery.
Okay, give me one example for healing our bodies. And don't point the transition from witchcraft and superstition to science unless you have an idea of what would replace science (two dots don't make a trend).
First of all, I didn't intend to attack you, apologies and respect. But what you present as an argument for your case is nonsense. The way cells work do not resemble anarchy in any shape or form. All cells are made first initial cell that gets divided and multiplied as to form various organs and the whole body. As all of this process is going on instructions in DNA are being executed. Without DNA code cells can't do anything. Under that one code each cell knows what to do and how to react at various situations.
Just describing what humans do as a representation of anarchy is wrong as well. You wan't to let of government, so you need to talk in those terms. Show me examples of societies or communities that work under anarchy? Show me why it is better? You can't. That's why I say your point of view is just noise and complaining, without offering any better alternative. Once you can offer a better alternative to governance maybe then people would start paying attention. Until then it is just noise.
The reason I said bs was because your initial argument was completely wrong. You can't just take something that is wrong and use it to make the idea of anarchy good or already existent.
Good luck.
I don't know for what type of anarchy you all talking about in here, but it happened already and it was not easy to maintain.
Anarchy is the state of nature. There is no state in nature. Ecology leads to spontaneous order in an ecosystem. There is no monopolistic regulator determining the interactions between trees, fungi, birds, small mammals, etc...
that is what you like to think.
Emergent order can be hierarchical
It is amazing how most people don't see the hypocrisy in their way of thinking.
Yes! But it's how humans are built. It takes deliberate thinking about thinking for people to recognize some of their own inconsistencies and most aren't willing to do that.
yeap, just from some of these responses, I can tell that people are not even reading the posts.
Yep...unfortunately
It is amazing how you upvote somebody because he agrees with you when gives you total bs with anarchy of trillions of cells in our body. That is complete ignorance. But ok, just sad.
I would upvote you if you would express an actual viewpoint, instead of attacking mine. I welcome disagreement and I like debate and discussion. If you would like to engage in some, I would love that.
but it is true. There are 7 billion people on earth each doing their own thing and yet we think that governments control their ways. He made a good parallelism. the whole of governments come from the false perception that there is some kind of order. I also explain that in the article.
you didn't read it.
Please stop with you did't read thing. Just because I disagree (respectfully) doesn't mean I didn't read. Just for that I had to read it again, just to make sure.
It seems to me you are blinded with your own point of view and not even considering opposite opinion. But when you see something that is supportive of your idea, you embrace it even though foundation was based flawed argument.
Just because you see corruption and misuse of powers doesn't mean they are living in anarchy. Depending of societies, there are many various ways of keeping government in check. Sure governments will never be perfect, but the will be improved as times goes on. Improvement and changes been done through the human history. That's why we have democracies. It is not perfect, but it is best form of government we have.
You see reading your article all I hear is complaining complaining and saying "top elite is enjoying anarchy, why don't we do the same". That is not true. If there is abuse of power that is corruption not anarchy. Even then, lets say you are right, and they are doing whatever they want, you would really want to impose that to everybody???
Do you just think letting go of government all of the sudden will take us to happy-land? Look around the world, give me one example of anarchic society that offers better life to people. Look in the history, give me one example of anarchic society that offered better life to people.
In a way it is dangerous idea. People carry tribalistic character, and stick with people of same idea. In a society you propose (with no government) who is going to protect the weak? who is going to protect the minority? You wouldn't care about that, because you too busy complaining, and don't bother giving viable alternative that would work better. If you can't offer anything better, why should we listen?
It is one thing to criticize the government and elite, seeking improvements and another to ask to get rid of it. Once you do that you should be able to provide an better alternative that works for all. Until you do that, it is just noise.
Just because 7 billion people have their own way of thinking we need governance. We need common ground that everybody has fair plain field to live. Thats why we form governments and social contracts. To make sure everybody is protected regardless of idea, differences and status. That is why we have social contract. It is a necessity, but always needs improvements. That is called progress.
You talk about hypocrisy, but really you are being hypocritical. You are embracing those idea that side with you and praise your post, while brushing off the opposite view and saying "oh you just haven't read it". Only up-voting the comments that side with your point of view, just shows how bad anarchy would be for most. People would tend to take care of their own (whatever it is in their mind) and weak would be abused.
Anyway, good talking. I disagree but respect :)
What a dumb comparison. Cells in our bodies aren't free agents.
Well, you don't have to be an anarchist to agree with that. There are many things the government should simply stay out of. Although, it seems to me that we need some sort of government to uphold justice when it comes to wrongdoing concerning sex. Not to mention deciding who gets custody of the child in case of a divorce. And concerning marriage, it would lose most of its function without government.
Well, I don't like public schools either.
Friendships and social gatherings are rather natural. Why would government ever need to be involved in that?
Well, I'm for privatized toll roads, as long as they're affordable (like the toll roads in the US, and unlike the 407 in Ontario). This means no monopolies on routes from point A to B. If there are no monopolies, then unbuilt and unrepaired roads directly affect these private company's profits. But who would make sure a monopoly doesn't arise?
Maaaaaaannnnn... You said it with this post. FUCK! I have thought of this before (believe it or not, Stefan Molyneux presented a form of this argument a while back), but the way you word it and bring it to life/illustrate this idea is so clear and fresh, and making me wonder why I don't think about this more. Upvoted and Resteemed.
When people say anarchy has never worked, I ask when has a government ever worked?
and then everyone goes silent.
nobody says "hey look...that war went dandy!"
systems always work for some people. not all. governmental system favors the very few.
True. I think government generally works for the people in government.
Well done post You deserve for getting Upvote from me. I appreciate on it and like it so much . Waiting for your latest post. Keep your good work and steeming on. Let's walk to my blog. I have a latest post. Your upvote is high motivation for me. Almost all Steemians do their best on this site. Keep steeming and earning.
thank you
U are welcome, please visit my account if you have time to do
This comment has received a 0.05 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
People at the top have always done as they pleased, you're right, that is straight anarchy. Anarchy at the top, creates order on the bottom.
more or less :)
This is where the politics of fear comes in. The never-ending orwellian wars, terrorism..."We need the govenrment to protect us, we need order, we'll give up on our fundamental human rights, but, please, just protect us from all the bad guys we see on TV".
they are creating fear really. great commodity.
love definition of anarchy in the ""Toupictionnaire" the political dictionary : Etymology: from the Greek an, privative prefix, and from arkhe, power, commandment.
Anarchy is a political system that aims at the emancipation of any governmental authority or guardianship. The State is considered unnecessary and no individual is under the dominion of another (lack of hierarchy between men). The anarchic social system is founded on the free understanding of the various components of society.
Very often used in a pejorative way, the term anarchy then designates the state of that which is without command, without laws. It is synonymous with disorder, confusion and disorder that have nothing to do with anarchy - political system - but are often linked to the existence of competing powers. Because of this double meaning of the word anarchy, a source of confusion, the use of the word libertarian, instead of an anarchist, has developed since the end of the nineteenth century. Another synonym: Acratie.
For anarchists, anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, but corresponds to a harmonious situation resulting from the abolition of the state and all forms of domination and exploitation of man. It is based on equality between individuals, free association, federation or self-management, sometimes even collectivism. Anarchy is therefore structured and organized, without there being any primacy of organization over the individual.
http://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/Anarchie.htm
I think chaos has gotten a bad rep. It is really "order" in a way.
Anarchy same as other ideology have unobtainable goals. If we follow only rules we like sooner or later we end up been forced or forcing others. So we end up with law of the jungle.
Then if we look government as strongest animal in jungle. We are then in anarchy where government is strongest entity and holds most influence over us all.
I like your posts they make me think.
well the government officials seem to be doing fine...
more or so like today. jungle 2.0
Anarchy leads to the strongest animal in the jungle. Power hates a void. I see no difference between a tribe rules by a chief that determines the rules and a government over people. At least with a government, people get to choose their leader without losing their head if they didn't choose wisely.
Anarchy has never worked.
Even Genghis Khan was the leader of his horde and I bet there were rules that none of them would break in fear of death.