jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (24 posts)

Does the political philosophy of anarchy have a legitimate role?

  1. cjhunsinger profile image68
    cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago

    Many today condemn America in favor of an anarchistic form of government. Anarchy is defined as, "an absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." It is also defined as chaos, mob rule and an absence of authority of any description.
    Having an understanding of human nature, I find it difficult to believe that such a system could be beneficial, as humans are, essentially, pack animals and will flock to an alpha leader. This will result in the formulation of mobs, gangs and roaming bands of thugs. This will eventually give way to tribal leadership and warring factions, which will give way to larger governmental structures and so on until we are back to where we are today.
    Perhaps there are those who would like to defend anarchy, as a positive in human development, as opposed to the Bill of Rights, which they see as a detriment.

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      First of all, you begin with a definition that is at best an inaccurate soundbyte, and at worse, a conscious attempt to steer the reader toward a negative view of Anarchism. Due to  over a century of mis-information, and outright lies, this  is not hard to do. You then continue your introduction with a fear based assumption; a conclusion that supports your preceding definition but has no basis in fact.

      The fact is, any mob action, or mob violence  that has ever occurred in the United States, has occurred, not in the context of an anarchistic system, but in the context of the current system of government. Consequently, your opinion that anarchy would lead to violence,chaos, and then ultimately right back to a rule of government similar to the one that we now "enjoy", is pure conjecture!

      Finally, you continue to load the dice by suggesting that the anarchist considers the Bill of Rights to be detrimental. Although it is true that Anarchism, like many other-isms, comes in a variety of flavors, I have yet to hear such an argument.  Your introduction reveals that you are more interested in reinforcing your faith in a system that has failed the common man, as opposed to exploring possibilities that have yet to be explored.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image68
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are failing me here wrench. It does not matter what I say and,  of course, my position goes against an anarchistic philosophy. This is an opportunity for you to intelligently respond and to lay a foundation, as to why anarchy would work.
        Take the time here to demonstrate and explore, lead the way. Why would anarchy work? What has to be accomplished? What has to be the  mindset? How do we get from here to there?
        I am an independent thinker, an Atheist and one who believes, ardently, in the sovereignty of the individual. I believe in individual achievement and at this point in time all that is best achieved by virtue of the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights,  which we are loosing.
        Now the stage is yours. Why is an anarchistic philosophy a better way to go and in defining anarchy, how do we get there?

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          A Beginning Methodology: Freedom and the Anarchistic State

          The world is in a worse state than many would care to believe. Americans cling to a two party system that is big on promises, but which is incapable, and unwilling, to empower and emancipate a work force that has enabled a ruling elite to enjoy a god-like status for centuries.

          This socio-political-economic system is both by design, and by it's very nature, an increasingly tangled web of oppression. We can see this trend in the passage of immoral, and oppressive laws such as "The Patriot Act". The problems faced by the working class are only compounded by their fruitless search for deliverance through the very system that enslaved them in the first place.

          An attempt to violently overthrow the present system would be futile,and disastrous. Furthermore, even if such an attempt succeeded, the general public would be at a loss to move forward. Such an event could only lead to a position even more precarious than that of the Freemen at the end of the Civil War. The harsh realities of the antebellum suddenly gave way to the equally harsh reality of homelessness,joblessness, and a fear and resentment among white southerners; paving the way for Jim Crow, and a hungry lynch mob.

          A sudden overthrow, or collapse of the present system would leave an uneducated, and unprepared populace to shoulder the responsibility of defining, and then implementing a new socio-economic paradigm; a moral, ethical,social, and economic pattern of which they have no reference. Here, there can be no comparison to the plight of the Freemen, as such an abrupt emancipation from tyranny could only lead to a complete breakdown of the social order; a prelude to oblivion.

          Education, in respect to the inherent evil nature of law enforcement , methods of state sponsored mind control, the unethical collection of taxes, and how the nature of man has been perverted by the concepts of land ownership and religion, must precede any direct action against the state. This is the beginning of how we get "from here to there"; from the rusted chains of a tired and cumbersome democracy, to the freedom of an anarchistic state, and the sovereignty of each individual man,woman,and child.  These are the things that must be taught to future generations within, and without the public school system, as they are the only hope for humanity.

          All but a very few beyond the age of puberty have already been corrupted with nationalism, patriotism, materialism, and a perverted form of Christianity that suggests a blind obedience to the democratic state in the name of God, when in truth, the state worships at the altar of materialism. In fact America as a whole, embodies the spirit of the anti-Christ, as explained in the Book of Revelations.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            EDIT
            EDIT
            A new direction in education should address:
            1. "The inherent evil nature of law enforcement."
            2. "Methods of state sponsored mind control."
            3. "The unethical collection of taxes."
            4. "Concepts of land ownership."
            5. "Concepts of religion."

                     and replaced with…
                                                             ?

    2. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      GOD NO, human being at this stage of the evolutionary process, need rules and laws; if there weren't any laws, human beings would create havoc.   Human beings at this stage are not evolved enough to have an anarchial form of government.  People are not that mature on their own to be law abiding and to be considerate of other's needs.  They are not mature enough to know right from wrong-that is why religion was instituted-to teach the average person the benefits of moral behavior.  Laws serve the same purpose.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Of course, it is human nature to act in the best interest of oneself and one's fellow man. Furthermore, mankind consists of intelligent creatures who willingly know and follow natural law.

    So, by all means let us do away with all man-made governments and laws.
    Let each person confer with the love in their hearts and true Selves.

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Your sarcasm reflects that you,like many others, have not taken the time to study any literature on the  subject, but have opted to believe in a popular fiction, rather than engage yourself in the arduous affair of reading. On a site that is primarily designed for writers, I have found  such behavior to be common, and quite remarkable.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Okay!!!   what ever!!!  You are on a writing site and have left us absolutely clueless.

        THANKS for NOTHIN'

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I am sorry Kathryn, but I must remind you that I did not start this thread. Furthermore, I did not leave you "clueless", nor anywhere else for that matter, as your education is not my responsibility. If I was involved in your life as a friend, or a significant other, I am sure that you would have a much better understanding of the world. As it stands, I suggest that you read Emma Goldman "ANARCHISM AND OTHER ESSAYS".
          I further suggest that you read it 3 times over a period of 45 minutes. I have found that this method provides better retention, and comprehension.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Techniques like that do not help me. I read as I read and comprehend as I comprehend. sometimes I have to read more than three times to get the message. I stop when I get it. But, thanks any way.
            I really hoped you could offer a hint... friend or significant other, or not.

            I am a bit lazy. I might go find that book… or not.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It's not that hard to find. Just paste the title in your browser and you're there.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, stranger on HP forums.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Please provide: "possibilities that have yet to be explored."

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "It has been said of old, all roads lead to Rome. In paraphrased application to the tendencies of our day, it may truly be said that all roads lead to the great social reconstruction. The economic awakening of the workingman, and his realization of the necessity for concerted industrial action; the tendencies of modern education, especially in their application to the free development of the child; the spirit of growing unrest expressed through, and cultivated by, art and literature, all pave the way to the Open Road. Above all, the modern drama, operating through the double channel of dramatist and interpreter, affecting as it does both mind and heart, is the strongest force in developing social discontent, swelling the powerful tide of unrest that sweeps onward and over the dam of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition."
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ … her-essays

    I see it is a rather large can of worms. looks interesting.

    thank you again, wB.

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, a very large can of worms. The man and the woman who are forced to work and pay tribute to the state, and to become more machine than man, has a heavy burden. The knowledge that can lead us to freedom is available, and very accessible, but the working class is purposely kept in a state of confusion.

      We are distracted by the physical exhaustion of working for many hours and for many days. We are distracted by at least one television in every home, and in many cases in every room! We are given the choice of hundreds of stations; most of them providing useless information; a useless form of entertainment that dulls the mind and leaves the body to rust. We are distracted by the illusion that we, the common man, must answer to both God and the state. We are distracted by the lie that a document, or a nation, has made us free, when in reality, all men are born free, and then quickly enslaved by the state. We are distracted by racism and materialism. Because of all of these distractions, the ruling class understands that a majority will never make an effort to understand this oppressive system, nor even realize that they should find a better way. And so, we must keep beating the drum.

  5. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    If I defined love as hate, then I would warn the whole world against falling there. But I have lived in both love and hate, and I have studied them also, and so I am confident that I know the difference. I have also lived in anarchy, as much as a prisoner can be free, and also I have studied, as much as a slave can comprehend. It is fundamental, that before finding a thing, we must first go looking for it.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ...true freedom.

  6. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    You have begun your comment with a pure fiction,as I have indicated no such thing "according to me".

    You ask, "Replaced with what?"  The answer is simple: Freedom. We have lived in a cage for so long , many of us have accepted it as our normal state of being. But nothing could be further from the truth. A transition to free society will have it's challenges, but it will be most challenging to those who have grown accustomed to power and privilege.

    I have provided you with 5 key issues, or points that must be addressed through education. Even a cursory review of any of these, reveals that they serve as tools of government oppression. For instance, concerning law and order:

    • The common argument that anarchy would necessarily devolve into chaos, is  a criticism that rests upon contingent cultural assumptions arising from a competitive scarcity economy.

    •  Peter Kropotkin's essay "Law and Authority" presents  the left-anarchist's view of law. According to Kropotkin, primitive human societies live by what legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure. Kropotkin considers this sort of behavioral regulation to be acceptable, and consistent with  anarchist society. But when centralized governments codified customary law, they mingled the sensible dictates of tribal conscience with governmental sanctions for exploitation and injustice.

    Peter Kropotkin writes, "Legislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom ... the maxims which represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect from the crowd. 'Do not kill,' says the code, and hastens to add, 'And pay tithes to the priest.' 'Do not steal,' says the code, and immediately after, 'He who refuses to pay taxes, shall have his hand struck off.'"

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry. see removal of fiction.

      Thank you for the answer to my question:
      The current non-free society will be replaced by a truly free society.
      This occurence will be accomplished through education which will allow society to gradually transition toward it.
      The teachers will teach according to… new doctrines, new theories new ideas...or are they old/ancient doctrines, theories, ideas?…based on conscious awareness/cooperation with the of laws of nature?
      - what laws?
        This paragraph (found in wB's post) answers my question/s:
      "Peter Kropotkin's essay "Law and Authority" presents the left-anarchist's view of law. According to Kropotkin, primitive human societies live by what legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure. Kropotkin considers this sort of behavioral regulation to be acceptable, and consistent with anarchist society. But when centralized governments codified customary law, they mingled the sensible dictates of tribal conscience with governmental sanctions for exploitation and injustice.


        So, get rid of governmental sanctions. Educate toward "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure."
      Interesting.
      In other words, provide consequences within society through social pressure…
      Q. What sort of social pressure?

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, there would be written laws. The previous example was simply making a comparison.Whatever would be necessary to address a particular grievance, or crime. For instance, a psychopath convicted of murder would necessarily be set apart from the rest of society. A desire for a free anarchistic state  would not extend to the absurdity of allowing murderers to roam freely. But as indicated earlier, there would be no government sanctions to exploit a criminal act for profit, nor to further any particular state agenda. The function of the state would not be to punish the psychopath, as it has been proven that punishment does not deter crime that is committed by sociopathic, or psychopathic personalities. But to further clarify, the function of the state would not be to punish anyone at all. The state's primary role would be to insure and maintain a social harmony. This would be achieved through various means: such as education , research, and medical treatment.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image83
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "The state's primary role would be to insure and maintain a social harmony. This would be achieved through various means: such as education , research, and medical treatment."

          The state would have an improved function. It would not disappear. Oh.

          This function would not include PUNISHING!!!!

          For instance:
          My son helped himself to (stole) a burrito from a food truck while up in Mammoth on a skiing trip. He was hungry and had forgotten his wallet which was far away in his car. He received a ticket for this selfish / lazy act. He negligently lost the ticket and forgot about it. It went to warrant.  He eventually got caught and spent a week in LA Jail. (Incidentally, he (a blond haired kid) reported that it was individuals of African descent who took him under his wing and protected him.) What would have been a better teaching lesson or treatment? for an adult... he was just over 21.
          (Believe me, he never again stole anything or let any ticket go to warrant after that ordeal!)
          I agree, punishments do not work for the very young, but for adults…?   You can't change an adult. They are pretty much set by the time they are 18. Cut and dry consequences are necessary, I think.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image68
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wrench
      As I have said before, I do not disagree with you on several points, as you espouse some points that are very dear to me. The problem that I found, that for me, many years ago, was the rude awakening that people are not created equal. I speak to intelligence, talent, determination and most importantly the capacity to reason. The ability to reason is like the talent to draw a picture. We can all draw a stick figure, but not equally well. We can all go to art school and learn to draw a better figure, but they will never be equal. Some people excel in one or more of the above stipulations most do not, Therefore you will always have those who will lead and those who will follow. This is not due to anything other than human nature and certain talents.
      The framers of the Constitution understood this, so to protect the followers from the unscrupulous we have the Bill of Rights. This Bill does not grant Rights. It is recognition of Rights and is a prohibition against government or anyone else from infringing on those Rights. The Bill also allows for the achievers, as in Bill Gates, Jobs, Ford, Edison and so many others, who came from a nothing position to great wealth. In the process millions of jobs were created and people had lives of worth, people that would have accomplished nothing on their own.
      The Constitution has nothing to do with theism and, essentially, shuns it and subordinates it to the People. Certainly, the Constitution is not perfect and has been and is very difficult to uphold. Humanity is a long way from where we need to be, to where both you and I would like to see it. You are right, in that religion retards that growth, our educational system, now retards that growth, as well as our moving away from the Constitution to a collectivist state. The beginning of freedom, not the end, is the freedom to achieve, as individuals by virtue of one’s own talents. The end is an anarchistic state where all people have reached a level of reason that prohibits what the Bill of Rights guards against, a violation of the individual.
      You wisely promote the idea of education, as a methodology to advance this thinking, and here I would like to hear, what that education is.
      You quote and source your information from a Peter Kropotkin, who was an avowed Communist, which is a failed system. Such ideologies have been tried repeatedly to include the several 'commonwealth' societies that sprang up in the American Colonies.   
      In your system an absolute equality of human talent is mandatory; how is that achieved? If you are smarter than I am, are you then restrained from exercising that ability in order to maintain an equality of being? If this is not the objective,  correct me.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        As I am sure you are aware, anarchism comes in several different flavors, just as other philosophies. Among that variety are various interpretations. I do not necessarily see anarchism as a means of promoting equality among men. Although the sentiment of equality among men looks good on paper, and sounds good peppered throughout heart felt speeches,it is painfully obvious that all men are not created equal.

        You may find this viewpoint surprising, considering many of my posts that rail against the status quo, and champion the underdog, but I am more of a misanthrope than a bleeding heart. My idealism is tempered with a relativist perspective, and I see morality as a pragmatic solution that can benefit all of mankind.

        You have stated that you are an atheist, and it is here that we must part company. To expedite this idea, suffice it to say that I know that all a man can know for sure is that all knowledge, ethics, and morality, will ultimately lead to an infinite regress. It follows that I can neither "know" that there is a God, no more than I can "know" there is not. Having accepted this as true, I can conclude that it is simply pragmatic to reason that there is. In doing so, I am able to employ, with conviction,the wisdom of a moral code that can alleviate, and prevent  undesirable social conditions that diminish the quality of life, not only for all of human kind, but the totality of life upon this Earth.

        Although I have no respect for the business of organized religion,this has no bearing on my conviction that useful moral principles are essential to the realization of the anarchistic state. Accepting the "Golden Rule" as a moral standard upon which to base a free society does not necessitate that I should subscribe to the fiction of equality among men. A man may despise me, or shun me for my arrogance, or my claim of superiority, but it is only when I consign him to perpetual servitude and humility that I have set in motion a vicious cycle of karmic debt. Having the benefit of over 500 years of hindsight, we can only conclude the following:

        The perceived benefits of the industrial revolution, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, technological advancement, and Manifest Destiny must be weighed against the price of admission to this brave new world. You have cited David Gates and Henry Ford as success stories, and you have mentioned the jobs that they created for millions of people. But after over 200 years, we are living in a system that continues to benefit 1% of the population at the expense of the other 99%, who are either living in poverty or consigned to a life of perpetual wage slavery. Furthermore, even if we choose to hide our head in the sand and pretend that a system that created the DuPont's, Rockefeller's,and Kennedy's, had nothing to do with two world wars, numerous military conflicts, environmental pollution, and poverty, we can not ignore the fact that it has not solved any of these problems either. To argue that the world would be in a worse state without the present system is pure conjecture.

        What we do know, and what has been proven, is that a materialistic,amoral society has delivered us to the brink of destruction. If we can understand that  a society based on materialism has led us here, then we must also understand that a society based on morality, personal freedom, and non-materialistic values could only lead us in the opposite direction. Hence, karma is revealed not only in a metaphysical sense, but also in the brick and mortar world of "one thing leads to another".

        Finally, in an anarchistic state, it would not be necessary for anyone to restrain themselves in order for others to "catch up", or to preserve a balance. Freedom must be absolute. An equal chance to excel, or to fail, based upon ones own merits, without influence or hindrance from the state, is the fundamental right of every citizen. This is the only equality among men that is real, or that matters.


        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11816726.jpg

 
working