Paedantic Basterd

We'd all rape and kill one another, then die out. Anarchy is foolish.

Freebase Dali

So you're basically saying that humans have absolutely no sense of right and wrong as it pertains to their own morality, and simply don't rape and kill because there would be a legal consequence?

Paedantic Basterd

No, I'm pretty much saying that all of the *******s would destroy everyone else because they would have a world with no consequences.

Freebase Dali

I doubt it would be a world of no consequence. Assuming we all had the means to protect ourselves, the consequence of infringing on someone else's basic human rights would be more deadly and feared than any currently instituted legal policy. I think that instead of worrying about individual ass holes, the real concern should be of another large force of people rising to power with enough influence and support to enable them to call the shots without you being able to do anything about it at all.

I'm not saying the current system isn't a stable one... I'm just saying that if you think you're better off letting someone else dictate the terms of our own security, then you're going to accept whatever those terms may be or may become. I just think that's a dangerous road to be comfortable traveling on. Sadly, we can't really do much about it... and that's kinda the entire point.

Paedantic Basterd

I was just being a misanthrope before, but in all seriousness, I don't think that anarchy could be maintained amongst the human race, and the very need to maintain such a thing defeats the point in and of itself. Socially and mentally, we're incapable of living as simply as the animal kingdom does.

Freebase Dali

Well, I don't think we're incapable of living outside of a civilized construct. I mean, we created it to begin with. We had to have existed quite well outside it to have even arrived at that point.

But I do agree that we're currently socially/mentally dependent on civilization. But obviously I don't think that's a state of mind relevant to anything but our current way of life, which is pretty much completely dictated by the societies we've constructed.

Paedantic Basterd

Physically, I'm sure we could still hunt, gather, make fire with sticks and all that great stuff, but I think it's impossible to take what we've become socially and mentally, and say to that "Let's go live off the land" and have anybody follow.

(And now follows a tangent not directly addressed to your post).

I'm always curious to know what anarchists actually imagine anarchy to be like. Do they imagine it to be abandoning our higher level of thinking, and returning to the basic animal instincts and processes? Is ingenuity not a human instinct then? How could we stagnate without losing the qualities that make us such a distinct species? Or are anarchists really just teenagers who want to be allowed to quit school and do drugs and vandalize **** all day?

The very fact that we have inventions and services in our society, from how I see it, renders anarchy implausible without reverting to animal behaviour and abandoning civilization. These services and items required to sustain our current society don't come out of thin air and can't be created by just anybody, so there is a need to make exchanges for goods and services, and already the barter system is social structure that anarchy aims to eliminate.

That's why anarchy seems so foolish to me. There's no way to de-evolve, and in our present state of species, we can't function without structure. I imagine that even if some event rendered humanity extinct save for a colony of people untouched by civilization, things would pan out the exact same way, because invention and curiosity is inherent in our species.

TheBig3

I hate to agree with Pedestrian, but he's right. In my experience, Anarchists are like people driving off of a cliff. The plans really great until there isn't anything left. Then you're ****ed.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

OccultHawk

If you would rather drive off the cliff than stay on the road you're on then it might be time to boogie down.

TheBig3

....right.

Well what I mean is, if you read up on what the 19th century anarchists believed, it was akin to communism with its unrealistic answers. Marx thought machines would do all the labor, and anarchists thought people would form communal foodstuffs to help out.

Theres no realistic position with either of them. It assumes human nature, like greed and sloth, would not exist but it doesn't explain why.

__________________
I've moved to a new address