Viable anarchy

[tydon]

I dont really care what the issue is, its about misrepresentation. I dont care about what his political belief is, it just is not anarchism............Thats what the issue is, not what his governmental beliefs are.

From dictionary.com

The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: “He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity” (Bertrand Russell).

From encarta:


1. doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition


2. actions of anarchists: behavior intended to overthrow or weaken a society’s formal system of government


3. resistance to control: resistance to all forms of authority or control


I cant find my websters dictionary.......somewhere in here.

Anyways, the point is, anarchism does not match his description of it.

If you are going to go through the effort of creating your own theology on a government, why not take the time to come up with a name that would match it instead of contradict it?

 

[Kore]

Well, it isnt anarchy. So your theory is shot down.

That's what I said. I said that anarchy would fall apart because the people who maintained an anarchy would be overwhelmed by those creating mobs or any other type of gov't or control, which would mean the country would end up in an ordered structure, whether brutal or diplomatic it won't be anarchy.

true anarchy is impossible to sustain since groups will naturally band together for protection.

That was the entire point of my post.

DrunkPotHead, how would the lack of technology prevent law and order? It's not a concept that was only made possible recently, though accuracy is a different story but that never stopped anyone.

As for the equal number of bullets, wouldn't you feel threatened by someone who has ten guys willing to kill for/over him even if you can kill him? And wouldn't bullets suddenly become an important commodity that some people would be willing to kill for, hence ending up with a controlling share of the islands bullets in their gang.

I don't mean the first generation here who elected to join, I mean afterwards, people born there who want to be in control and feel that this is their homeland.

Actually, just having a low population would mean that my point is moot, but I'd still like to hear if you have any ideas as to stopping it if it were a large population on a big island.

EDIT: PLF, point about money is very true. I've never understood why people advocate the distruction of currency as a way to ease suffering.

 

[DrunkPotHead]

Lack of technology would prevent accuracy, ur right. Therefore, law and order can not be properly administered. I can kill some1, then go up to their friends and point the finger at somebody else.

If 10 people work together, unless they are constantly looking for each other at every second of the the day (which is unlikely), it is easy to get rid of them 1 by 1.

Bullets would be an important commodity. This is somehow starting to remind me of doom, and wolfenstein....

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

One of the classic examples of why anarchy can never exist:

I am cooking food. A thief steals my food. I need that food to live. I chase him down and butcher him with my hatchet, and take his food back. Now another guy sees me butcher this man, but doesn't know why, and assumes that he'd better follow me and kill me because I am too dangerous to be left alive and living near him, and so on.

When someone is their own judge jury and executioner, you tend to have a lot of people acting in a lot of different ways which just makes it hard for EVERYONE... This causes people to band together (though money does as well), and create a society.

I tell public enemy every time he brings up these cockamamie ideas that they just won't work, but yet he still posts them every time... Sigh... And never bothers to respond to the criticism save by citing that same site every time.

 

[Kore]

Lack of accuracy doesn't mean that you'll be wrong all the time. There are non technology related methods of finding who did it, non forensic police work for example, particularly when supported by torture.

Instead of constantly looking after one another (except for the boss, he'd always have people watching him) they could just check in every morning or so. Someone doesn't check in all of you go out and find out what happened. You start questioning people, start looking for clues and that sort of thing. You start to watch each other 24/7 until you catch the guy responsible, and you draw and quarter him publicly so everyone knows what happens to anyone who messed with you.

*Complains that people drop clips for the wrong kind of ammo and wonders why he can't find the gun they were just shooting him with*

 

[DrunkPotHead]

Remember, one gun can kill more than one person in several seconds...

 

[Kore]

Remember, one gun can kill more than one person in several seconds...

If they all have guns they can kill you before you can kill all of them. Sure, you'd kill some of them, but is it worth dying for?

 

[DrunkPotHead]

That's your choice, and yours alone to make.

 

[Kore]

There are going to be exceptions, but since we're talking about societal effects the more important thing is what most people would do. If the answer is "not that" then the mob will survive. Even if they get finished off when they're are weak before they can rebuild, doesn't make a difference because others will take their place.

I can't imagine how you'd stop this situation personally, that's why I'm wondering how you'd structure this society.

 

[DrunkPotHead]

First off, to make a mob, one or more person would have to approach the other. What makes you think that one person would let another person approach him?

If let's say they did form a mob, they can be taken out one by one. Second off, other natural hazards would exist, distracting them from just looking out for each other. Wild animals, weather, bathroom, etc...

 

[Kore]

See, I didn't imagine anything about people forcing themselves into total isolation and not talking to anyone else. If they were hermits that is a different story.

As for the other elements, those are things you'd want to protect each other from, and the bathroom can be done within a protected perimiter sort of.

 

[AeroJonesy]

With anarchy, would there ever be any investment?

If you're too busy worrying about getting killed and just scraping by, you're never going to get much of an investment in any new technology or anything.

DPH, why would anyone ever go to your island?

On a side note, look at human history. Look how much the quality of living (for many, not all) has improved so rapidly in the past couple hundred years. And think about how long humans have been alive. I seem to notice a nice correlation between organized society and an improvement in the overall quality of life. Even when you go back into Roman or Greek times.