Quote:
Originally Posted by SATCHMO
I think that as global consciousness evolves toward greater enlightenment we will begin to see the manifestation of the circumstances that you're alluding to. I'm very hesitant to throw the label of anarchy on such a situation and I believe part of the problem is that the term to some denotes a kind of dystopian society and for others quite the opposite, a sort of soft communism. I do think that in what you're referring to is a bit of the latter mixed with some pretty heavy idealism. I don't believe that humans are beyond achieving that ideal, but I'm fairly hard pressed to call it anarchy, simply because of the myriad of connotations that the term is already saturated with.
|
Meh, there aren't really any words you can use to describe it that aren't saturated with negative connotation. By strict definition, it is anarchy (a stateless society) and it is communism (a classless, stateless society without property). Unfortunately, you say "anarchy" and people think Molotov ****tails [edit: Silly censor.] you say "communism" and people think gulags.
I only used "anarchy" because the discussion began with the term. Typically I say communism, simply because it is strictly the most accurate, but that generally has even more baggage.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tore
Neither is anarchy in any way "natural".
|
Indeed, that's my point. We should not constrain ourselves to what is perceived as "natural" or "unnatural" societal structures, but rather look towards what is possible, and what is ideal. Evolution got us here, but it also gave us the ability to reason, to go beyond our biological conditioning if the situation deems it necessary.