A Kind Word For Anarchy

[chefranden]

It is supposed by many that the reason that there is crime and terror in the world is that there is not enough law, law enforcement, and harsh punishment. Some Christinan dominionists want to return to biblical law with stoning and all that crap. Have very many people stopped to think that maybe law and order doesn't work? Isn't several thousand years of history full of murder, theft and mayham enough of a government experiment?

 

Consider this thought from law professor Butler Shaffer: ...Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill – through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices – some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!

 

Catch the rest of Shaffer's essay here.

[Thurisaz]

There's some truth to be found on both sides of this controversy. Niflhel, in this case even hoover said some true words in one of its fucking seminars...

 

...for those who didn't check out its bullcrap, the lines go like this:

 

"...they say 'we need more gun laws'. I ask you this: The Columbine shooters broke 19 gun laws during their butchery day, do you think three more laws would have mattered?..."

 

(paraphrased from memory)

 

Total anarchy has its own drawbacks - whether it works or not depends solely on the people involved. If all are cool it can be the ideal form of (non-)government. If there are some power-hungry fuckfaces among them and if they happen to manage to get enough power for themselves... oh well...

[Fweethawt]

Didn't everyone live in a state of anarchy prior to the formation of governments?

[pitchu]

Some of my best friends are anarchists.

 

But they are lonely.

 

Curiously, you gotta have a lot of anarchists for anarchy.

[chefranden]

Chomsky considers nation states to be illegitmate.

 

Anarchy is the natural form of governance.

[vampyre]

I think of anarchy as more of a cleansing agent than a form of government, for humans will always seek a government.

 

Anarchy is a fire that destroys the corrupt and rightous both, and is something that I feel is sorely needed to make governments accountable.

 

Just my thought.

[chefranden]

I think of anarchy as more of a cleansing agent than a form of government, for humans will always seek a government.

 

Anarchy is a fire that destroys the corrupt and rightous both, and is something that I feel is sorely needed to make governments accountable.

 

Just my thought.

 

Interesting. I have some questions

 

1. What makes you think that humans will always seek a government? Compared to the whole time of human existence it is a relatively recent invention. In addition the control of almost every human by a government is only about 200 years old. Therefore it would be difficult to consider it a natural condition.

 

2. What would governments be accountable to? If you say the people then there is no need for government. I can't think of any government that has been governed by the people. It is non-sense, don't you think, to say people govern the governer that governs them. Why add the additional agent? If people can govern the governer, then they can just govern themselves.

 

3. Why do you call anarchy a fire? Anarchy is not about periods of riotious behavior. It is not about no rules. It is about no rulers.

[vampyre]

chefranden Posted Today, 07:08 PM

QUOTE(vampyre @ Aug 18 2006, 05:37 PM)

 

I think of anarchy as more of a cleansing agent than a form of government, for humans will always seek a government.

 

Anarchy is a fire that destroys the corrupt and rightous both, and is something that I feel is sorely needed to make governments accountable.

 

Just my thought.

 

 

 

Interesting. I have some questions

 

1. What makes you think that humans will always seek a government? Compared to the whole time of human existence it is a relatively recent invention. In addition the control of almost every human by a government is only about 200 years old. Therefore it would be difficult to consider it a natural condition.

 

2. What would governments be accountable to? If you say the people then there is no need for government. I can't think of any government that has been governed by the people. It is non-sense, don't you think, to say people govern the governer that governs them. Why add the additional agent? If people can govern the governer, then they can just govern themselves.

 

3. Why do you call anarchy a fire? Anarchy is not about periods of riotious behavior. It is not about no rules. It is about no rulers.

 

1. Because humans are lazy. When one person steps up and says that they can make life better for everyone if only everyone would do what they say, and the majority of people believe them, you have a dictatorship.

 

On top of that, given that there is no government, the religions of the wourld would gain a greater foothold until there was a simple theocracy. Before the big governments of today, there were smaller tribal governments in all culters, thus a way of controling people. The advantage of the tribal governments is that a small group of people governed over a relatively small group of people instead of a small group of people governing hundreds of thousands of people.

 

2. Yes, I am going to say the people. The government would have to take better care and take more consideration for its people if it were in fear of an upheaval. It is my belief that this is what the Founding fathers had in mind for America, just that it never made it.

 

3. Fire is not the same as chaos, as you seem to believe. I choose fire because once a fire starts it can be impossible to put out. That is the unrepentant dream of all anarchists, that a spark will cause a great fire that will end all governments because the people refuse to be slaves. Still, this is only my belief.

[Vigile]

I probably live like an anarchist as much as I am able. I left the US to live a quiet life in a country where the government doesn't care that I exist as long as I don't make problems. If the government here starts to care about my existance, I will move on to find another broken governmental infrastructure.

 

I do like your ideas, but had a few comments nonetheless.

 

Interesting. I have some questions

 

Compared to the whole time of human existence it is a relatively recent invention. In addition the control of almost every human by a government is only about 200 years old. Therefore it would be difficult to consider it a natural condition.

 

How so? Personally I don't see that much has changed from our fuedal past. The aristocracy still owns the means and mode of production and makes the rules so that wealth and power flow up. The rest are set to toil and feed the machine.

 

1. What makes you think that humans will always seek a government?

 

I think he makes a valid point here. There are those who are bent on seeking power. Power doesn't like a vaccuum. For example, warlord infested Afghanistan or Africa for that matter. Another example, the mafia.

 

I should mention, I consider government a form of mafia. Just one that has found a way to make itself appear more legit.

 

2. What would governments be accountable to? If you say the people then there is no need for government. I can't think of any government that has been governed by the people. It is non-sense, don't you think, to say people govern the governer that governs them. Why add the additional agent? If people can govern the governer, then they can just govern themselves.

 

Yes, of course, the government represents the elite who seek power by force, by coercion, by propaganda, etc. People have governed themselves in the past. African tribalism, for e.g., but modern weaponry is problematic. What to do with the power hungry willing to use modern warfare?

 

Like I said, I agree with your sentiment. Perhaps I am just not imaginitive enough to see a valid solution. I like freedom and I don't wish to be governed nor support a system of government. The only solution that I have found to be viable is one that only works for me; that is, to stay under the radar screen. I have no idea what would be the solution for the masses.

 

But perhaps I missed your main point somewhere.

[pitchu]

Chomsky considers nation states to be illegitmate.

 

Anarchy is the natural form of governance.

 

Chef, I'm not sure what your link was about, as regards this topic, but, personally, I wouldn't trust Noam Chomsky to correctly give his mother's maiden name.

 

Chomsky often challenges his detractors to check out his sources. Funny thing happens when you do that.

 

My husband (a researcher, among other things) has unearthed some original sources for Chomsky's claims on just about everything, and it's stupefying how often Chomsky selectively quotes (thus negating the true intent of the quote), twists the meaning of, or outright re-phrases

the source material to achieve what he wants to support.

 

Husband sent much of this to Alan Dershowitz, who regularly debates Chomsky. Shortly thereafter, Chomsky and Dershowitz appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" radio show, in which Chomsky again suggested his listeners check his sources. Dershowitz, nearly shouting, emitted a string of entreaties, himself, something on the order of, "Oh, do that, by all means, do check out every one of his sources, please, I beg you, check out his sources!"

 

I believe Chomsky to be a fatuous low-voiced inciter who thinks he can get away with shocking deceptions because he actually believes, as has recently been said, that he is a new "Prophet".

 

As opposed to Chomsky's claims in what you linked, there's so much that's been documented. For instance, this:

 

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli "red lines", especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak "courageous" for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

 

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

 

* Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip

* The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal

* The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control

* Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control

* Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City

* "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

 

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out.

 

<snip>

 

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

 

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:

 

* Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.

 

Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton’s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit's failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000).

 

<snip>

 

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."

From:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_no...pdavid_2000.php

[chefranden]

Interesting. I have some questions

 

Compared to the whole time of human existence it is a relatively recent invention. In addition the control of almost every human by a government is only about 200 years old. Therefore it would be difficult to consider it a natural condition.

 

How so? Personally I don't see that much has changed from our fuedal past. The aristocracy still owns the means and mode of production and makes the rules so that wealth and power flow up. The rest are set to toil and feed the machine.

Even though we are a realatively young species, our past goes much deeper into time then the middle ages. Even during the middle ages much of the human population did not live under the claws of civilizations. They lived with their environments rather than opposed to them. Western European civilization proved the most virulent an spread the farthest. But it wasn't until late in the 19th century that it just about finished eradicating or assimulating people who weren't "productive".

 

1. What makes you think that humans will always seek a government?

 

1. I think he makes a valid point here. There are those who are bent on seeking power. Power doesn't like a vaccuum. For example, warlord infested Afghanistan or Africa for that matter. Another example, the mafia.

 

2. I should mention, I consider government a form of mafia. Just one that has found a way to make itself appear more legit.

 

1. Well that is true. Taker culture* has proved virulent in all its forms with Western culture being the worst of the lot. It may be that the disease is fatal. However some like David Korten think that it can be cured. I think we make a mistake to think of the disease as being the natural state.

 

2. I like this idea. It seems to ring true. Government is organized crime. Brilliant!

 

 

What to do with the power hungry willing to use modern warfare?

 

Lots of people are trying assymetric warfare, but it is costly and it takes a good deal of desparation or idealism to motivate engagement. Problem is that the leaders see the problem in terms of rule #3*. Daniel Quinn and David Korten think that once a critical mass of folks wake up to the story they are living and change to a different one that the weapons will be put away for lack of users. I'm not so optimistic.

 

But perhaps I missed your main point somewhere.

I don't have a main point other than to start discussion that will maybe lead to a few seeing the box so that they can think outside of it, like you have. I don't have a solution. I haven't read anything that I can recommend as a solution. I hope that some the youngsters here will think of solutions, because if they keep on doing what we've done, they will keep on getting what we got.

 

 

*Taker Culture coined by Daniel Quinn operates under these rules: 1) The world was created for man to conquer and rule, 2) Man was made to conquer and rule the world, and

3) The reason it hasn't worked out is because Man is flawed in some fundamental and inherent way.

[vampyre]

The probleme with governments is that they are everywhere, you can't run from them. Also, most people are dependant upon their government sponsored economy to survive.

 

There is no way around this, at least no way to drasticaly change the governments of the world to allow freedom in all forms (With the exception of taking other's freedom). Time is what is needed.

 

Think of it like a balloon. If you blow it up too much it will eventualy burst, just like if you take away too many peoples freedom they will eventualy burst.

[chefranden]

1. Because humans are lazy. When one person steps up and says that they can make life better for everyone if only everyone would do what they say, and the majority of people believe them, you have a dictatorship.

I will agree that humans are "lazy" but not in a pejoritive sense. No one faults a bear for sleeping all winter. We probably evolved to live on about 4 hours/day of work. We evolved to cut enough wood to build a village and to heat the hut, but not to work 60 hour/week turning the forests into piles of lumber, for Weyerhaeuser. It took guys with whips to domesticate us, to make us productive. We've gotten more sophisticated. We've invented the technology of school that trains young people to do long hours of mindless labor without much complaining. The technology works so well that people grow up to feel guilty if they aren't working in this manner. I think the quilt is learned helplessness, "we have to do this; there is nothing else to do; we are bad if we don't." If your conscious and your boss don't keep your nose to the wheel, you might stop working and "shudder" have fun.

 

On top of that, given that there is no government, the religions of the wourld would gain a greater foothold until there was a simple theocracy. Before the big governments of today, there were smaller tribal governments in all culters, thus a way of controling people. The advantage of the tribal governments is that a small group of people governed over a relatively small group of people instead of a small group of people governing hundreds of thousands of people.

 

Theocracy just means government by religion. It is a form of taker culture*. Tribal governments were eliminated because they tended to be leavers. Leavers lived by taking enough to be comfortable and leaving the rest. Nature handed them a living in the same way it handed bears and mice a living.

 

2. Yes, I am going to say the people. The government would have to take better care and take more consideration for its people if it were in fear of an upheaval. It is my belief that this is what the Founding fathers had in mind for America, just that it never made it.

The government is in fear of an upheaval. Everything it does is designed to prevent upheaval. People forget that the US welfare system that the US government is so busy dismantaling came about from the riots of our black brothers and sisters in the 60's. It was a relatively cheap way of giving the poor a large enough piece of pie to keep them off the streets while at the same time keeping the poor from getting a fair share of the pie.

 

Read Howard Zinn's The People's History of the United States. You will find that the founders didn't have freedom for anyone but the class of white land or industry owners in mind. They designed an oligarchy controled republic. (Why don't you ever see a taxi driver, or a cook in congress or the white house or on the bench?] And that is exactly what we have. Don't be fooled otherwise. Most of the founders didn't want the bill of rights included, and the government has worked hard to keep the teeth of rights filed. For example, Congress has made countless laws abriging free speach that the courts have upheld. All the glorious retoric aside, the progress towards including Joe and Jane Sixpack in the process has been largely smoke and mirrors.

 

3. Fire is not the same as chaos, as you seem to believe. I choose fire because once a fire starts it can be impossible to put out. That is the unrepentant dream of all anarchists, that a spark will cause a great fire that will end all governments because the people refuse to be slaves. Still, this is only my belief.

 

Well it is not the dream of this anarchist. It is certainly how anarchy is portrayed. It is good for the ruling class when the ruled classes fear being without the ruling class. Perhaps it would be better to think of it as Anaristocracy than Anarchy.

 

By the way, I should mention that part of the genius behind the Republic of The United States is that the ruling class stays realatively obscure to the general population. They can hire someone like George as a middle manager that takes the heat and gets the blame. And every 4 or 8 years pressure can be let off a bit by hiring a different manager to replace the evil one with one that will make things "all better". All the while the same people own the state.

 

*Taker Culture, coined by Daniel Quinn, operates under these rules: 1) The world was created for man to conquer and rule, 2) Man was made to conquer and rule the world, and

3) The reason it hasn't worked out is because Man is flawed in some fundamental and inherent way.

 

Chomsky considers nation states to be illegitmate.

 

Anarchy is the natural form of governance.

 

Chef, I'm not sure what your link was about, as regards this topic, but, personally, I wouldn't trust Noam Chomsky to correctly give his mother's maiden name...

 

I won't argue with you yet. I will get one of Chomsky's books and check his sources first. I have respected him over the years. Maybe I shouldn't.

[vampyre]

You make some very good points, chefranden. Thank you for explaining to me what Taker Culture was, it was quite enlightening. And you do make a very good point that this Representitive Republic has the best intrests of those at the top in mind.

 

I still think that what the world needs is a good plague.. for about fifty years...

[Vigile]

The probleme with governments is that they are everywhere, you can't run from them. Also, most people are dependant upon their government sponsored economy to survive.

 

There is no way around this, at least no way to drasticaly change the governments of the world to allow freedom in all forms (With the exception of taking other's freedom). Time is what is needed.

 

Think of it like a balloon. If you blow it up too much it will eventualy burst, just like if you take away too many peoples freedom they will eventualy burst.

 

The difference here is that some governments have the ability and the propensity to FUCK UP YOUR LIFE and other governments tend to be more of an irritation than anything else.

 

Case in point. In the US if I drive 10 miles over the speed limit, cops, which are everywhere, can pull me over, fine me, raise my insurance, and put points on my record. Here in Russia if I drive too fast, the cop may wave me over. We talk a bit, I slip him 500 rubles ($20) and am on my way; no harm, no foul. And yes, Russians drive too fast, but the accident rates aren't too much different here than in the states.

 

In America there are roughly 3 million citizens serving time in prison - a whopping 1% of the population. Places like Italy, are far more lenient on crime; they have no death penalty; their prisons don't hold nearly as many as the US; and sentances are far shorter. Yet the rate of violent crime is much lower than the US.

 

If you are a citizen of the US, you are obligated to pay taxes no matter where you live and no matter how long you have lived outside the US. If you don't, you can have your passport confiscated, your accounts frozen, prison, et al. The only other country in the world that taxes its citizens abroad is Lebanon. Here in Russia everyone does work under the table and the government winks at it.

 

Just a few minor examples, but again, I see government here in Russia as only a minor irritation.