Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-09-2010, 04:17 PM   #41 (permalink)
Dom
Music Addict
 
Dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
I think that in the practical application anarchy would be unsustainable for any extended period of time. People would wind up finding it advantageous to organize into larger and larger groups and before you know it, boom, you'd have governments. Ironically, anarchy being what it is, there'd be nothing in place to prevent this from happening.
This I think is the main problem. Humanity began as an anarchy and formed governments, and by the definition of anarchy, there'd be no one to stop it happening again.
__________________

No more stories / are told today / I'm sorry / they washed away // No more stories / the world is grey / I'm tired / let's wash away.
Dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2010, 06:10 PM   #42 (permalink)
myspace.com/stonebirdies
 
Stone Birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conor Oberst Was/is Here
Posts: 1,401
Default

Anarchy is wonderful idea but is nearly impossible
__________________
//\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V

//\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V

[Link removed by mod, no advertising] ... Damn those mods are always gettin ya :)
Stone Birds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:42 AM   #43 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom View Post
This I think is the main problem. Humanity began as an anarchy and formed governments, and by the definition of anarchy, there'd be no one to stop it happening again.
This depends entirely on the form of "anarchy". There are many societies which lack a state (primitive Native American tribes, most monasteries, part of Spain during the civil war, etc etc)

You can't group anarchy into one term and assert "by definition" it will happen again. Humans in a tribal state are vastly different than humans today in ways too numerous to list. Your anarchy -> state progression assumes that once the state is gone, we will go back to living in caves and hunting-gathering, which almost nobody (and certainly not myself) is advocating.

Obviously if we just tore the state away immediately, some chaos, power struggles, etc would ensue, and another one would take its place. This happens all the time. The interesting question anarchism brings up is which transitory methods we should use to get there. This is where the line between anarchism and Marxism/communism becomes rather blurred. Given that a collectivist-anarchist society is not feasible with the culture we have today, how do we change the culture to the point that it is feasible? This was the aim of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, both just happened to fail miserably. However, we should not give up hope, but rather use these mistakes as an opportunity to learn how to enact a successful revolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone Birds
Anarchy is wonderful idea but is nearly impossible
It may be impossible today, but that does not mean it won't be possible in the future, nor does it mean we should give up striving towards it.

The idea that "human nature" means that anarchy will never work is erroneous to the point of absurd. Countless societies have operated on mutualist, collectivist terms. The idea of man being selfish, egoist, etc is a rather western, capitalist concept - many early European societies, as well as Eastern societies, operated not on individual self-interest, but on selfless devotion to a group, the collective, etc.

In addition, in any society, we see a myriad of people with a myriad of traits. Some are extraordinarily selfish hedonists, others are selfless, doing volunteer work, helping those in need, etc. Are the selfless people "not human" or "unnatural"? No, they're just another expression of human characteristics.

Why are some people selfish and others kind and generous? If they answer is anything but "A substantial portion of the population is genetically hardwired to be self-interested, and regardless what sort of society they are exposed to, they will act that way" (an idea which has absolutely no evidential basis, and is rather absurd), then anarchism is feasible given the right circumstances.
Enigmocracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:09 AM   #44 (permalink)
.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,507
Default

Nice post. Some things I was gonna post but didn't have the wherewithal.
someonecompletelyrandom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:13 AM   #45 (permalink)
Al Dente
 
SATCHMO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmocracy View Post

Why are some people selfish and others kind and generous? If they answer is anything but "A substantial portion of the population is genetically hardwired to be self-interested, and regardless what sort of society they are exposed to, they will act that way" (an idea which has absolutely no evidential basis, and is rather absurd), then anarchism is feasible given the right circumstances.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
And if you're getting bored then feel free to go give Eddie Vedder a handjob.
SATCHMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 07:51 AM   #46 (permalink)
myspace.com/stonebirdies
 
Stone Birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Conor Oberst Was/is Here
Posts: 1,401
Default

watch the movie "Watchmen" beginning to End

the end is the closest we could ever get to anarchy, and even that probably wouldn't last.
__________________
//\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V

//\\//\\/\\/\/\/\\\\\\\\///\/\/\/\/\\////\/\\\\\///\V

[Link removed by mod, no advertising] ... Damn those mods are always gettin ya :)
Stone Birds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 08:02 AM   #47 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone Birds View Post
watch the movie "Watchmen" beginning to End

the end is the closest we could ever get to anarchy, and even that probably wouldn't last.
Code:
WALTER
Forget it, Donny. You're out of your element.
trapdoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 11:02 AM   #48 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Contrary to popular belief, anarchy is not necessarily some kind of natural state. Cardboard Adolescent wrote that animals don't form governments. That may be true, but hierarchies of power where most mass towards the bottom and you get fewer on top is very common. When you go to feed the ducks in your park, you may assume that every duck you feed has a place in the duck population hierarchy. The ones closest to you which get the most food are likely on top of this hierarchy while the birds in the back are at the bottom.

Something which is important in evolutionary biology and which also is highly relevant to an anarchy discussion is the concept of stable states. Sometimes, the optimal strategy for everyone in a population would be to be nice to everyone all the time. That would benefit everyone the most. However, that can't easily evolve because even if it sounds nice, such a strategy may get exploited. Let's say you have a society where everyone shares food with eachother. If an individual appears in that population that does not share food, but only takes it, that individual would thrive - he or she would get more food than anyone else. Although everyone sharing sounds good, the social environment in that population would greatly reward the exploitive behaviour.

You can apply this principle to groups of people. I think one of the most important things a society should do is increase the living standards of the people in it, now and for the future. To do that, you have to create a societal environment where it is possible for people to be sharers because that is what benefits us all. This is only feasible if society has also created an environment where exploiters cannot thrive, one that punishes exploitation.

I find it hard to imagine anarchic societies where the strong will not be rewarded for exploiting the weak. We need some kind of central authority with the power to ensure that negative actions have negative consequences, create an environment that punishes exploitation. Neither is anarchy in any way "natural". Believing it's for the best is something I generally consider wishy-washy.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:34 PM   #49 (permalink)
And then there was music
 
Badlittlekitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Wild Heaven
Posts: 287
Default

Quote:
All internet porn is to be blocked at the ISP level under a UK Government plan.

According to a Sunday Times story being republished around the globe the plan, to be discussed next month with major ISPs including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, would require all pornography to be blocked. Adults would then have to opt-in to get access to pornography. It is not clear at this point what kinds of materials would be considered porn and therefore blocked under the scheme.

The idea of an opt-in system was raised by Conservative MP Claire Perry in November, following a study that suggested one-in-three children under 10 had seen pornography on the internet. In 2007, the British Government asked ISPs to block child pornography using a list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation. Proponents of the opt-in porn blocking scheme have pointed to that trial as evidence a wider blocking scheme would be technically feasible.

UK communications minister Ed Vaizey told The Sunday Times that he hoped to convince ISPs to take on the scheme voluntarily.

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years,'' he said.

It appeared some ISPs were prepared to take on the government plan, with one TalkTalk executive suggesting providers should be forced to filter porn if they do not choose to do so without coercion.

''If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work,'' executive director of strategy and regulation Andrew Heaney said. TalkTalk intends to introduce a service dubbed ''bright feed'' that would allow homeowners to restrict access to internet content based on a cinema-style rating system.
I'm no anarchist and I've never paid mind to politics, but if these Tory cunts deprive me my right to my seventeen wanks a day then I'm taking it to the streets.
__________________
'Said do you feel it? Do you feel it when you TOUCH ME?. THERE'S A FIRE! THERE'S A FIRE!' The Stooges. Dirt.

https://soundcloud.com/bad-little-kittens
My Top 100 LPs
My Top 52 Indie Tracks Of The 21st Century (incomplete)
Badlittlekitten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 01:51 PM   #50 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SATCHMO View Post
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.

Last edited by Enigmocracy; 12-20-2010 at 02:04 PM.
Enigmocracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.