Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinepsilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.

Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: Phred]
    #1352814 - 03/05/03 01:35 PM (21 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:


...the members of the Anarchist society have no option but to deal with it individually or through temporary "posses".




These "posses" you speak of form solely for the need of self-defense when another group or groups threatens their survival. They have no choice but to form these groups since there is no local, state, or federal police force to attempt to reestablish the peace. In an anarchist state, this would occur on a rather frequent basis, as various individuals and groups would seek domination. Eventually, the individuals in these groups would all recognize the need to form a permanent alliance in order to assure their security. As time goes on, these groups would continue to fight for domination, and larger alliances will be formed amongst groups with common interests and goals. Thus the seeds of government have been sown........
Quote:


I must disagree. I believe it is possible for Anarchism to work in small groups of very dedicated, like-minded individuals.




These "small groups" would in effect become the "posses" spoken of above. Thus, anarchy is virtually impossible, at least for any extended period of time. The formation of various forms of government is part of human nature.
Quote:


I disagree on two counts: it is neither nice nor pretty, but it [communism] WILL work (at least for a while) providing the State has no qualms about exerting force on its citizens.




The very existence of a state to exert force on its citizens is a violation of communistic principles, as defined by Karl Marx. According to his vision, the need for a government would eventually disappear, and people would pretty much share of their own good will. There is no such thing as a truly Communist state in existence today.


--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!

www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: psilo25]
    #1353546 - 03/05/03 11:36 PM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

These "small groups" would in effect become the "posses" spoken of above. Thus, anarchy is virtually impossible, at least for any extended period of time. The formation of various forms of government is part of human nature.



a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.

Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
    #1353764 - 03/06/03 03:02 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...



Okay, so we'll assume that this free state of equally minded people is completely isolated from all other groups of people. I suppose for a short time a small anarchist state would exist. But given enough time, conflicts will arise within this group. Eventually, people would be looking for a figure of authority to help resolve these conflicts as peacefully as possible. That person will eventually become their leader, until another proved to be more effective. It's simply human nature--humans are social animals. We travel in groups, and all groups have leaders. As soon as this leadership position is filled, anarchy ceases to exist.


--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!

www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: anarchy [Re: psilo25]
    #1353837 - 03/06/03 03:50 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

It's simply human nature--humans are social animals. We travel in groups, and all groups have leaders.

Small groups of around 30 don't tend to function if one guy dictates what everyone else does and takes more than his fair share. The rest of the group are likely to fall out with the dictator, refuse to take part in hunts with any enthusiasm and the group rapidly dies out. Leaders more usually emerge when they have police and armies to back them up. In small groups of 30 dictatorship isn't a workable concept.

The only way it works is if everyone feels valued and everything is shared equally. Which is more than likely how human hunter-gatherer societies worked for many hundreds of thousands of years.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepsilo25
The one stuck inthe middle ofthis hopelessmess.

Registered: 03/03/02
Posts: 244
Loc: over here
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
    #1353967 - 03/06/03 04:50 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

I never said that the leader of the group had to be a dictator. The leader would simply serve as a source of order, discipine, and unity. In such a small group, a dictator would be overthrown very quickly, and a new leader would quickly be chosen to better serve the will and needs of the group.


--------------------
Stand up for your freedoms, join the fight against the War on Drugs!

www.drcnet.org
www.drugpolicyalliance.org
www.drugsense.org

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
    #1354094 - 03/06/03 05:46 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

a posse against who? If it's a small isolated group (free state) of equally minded people, there would be no need of such a posse. this might very well work, see the anarchy.org faq for examples...




So you have a small group (how many equals small? 30? 40?) And you have males and females in the group, naturally, some of the males and some of the females will form couples.

When people form couples, they usually display some means of affection, one of those means is sexual intercourse. A nasty side effect of sexual intercourse is it makes babies.

So lets say there were 7 couples in the group of 30, well they have an average of 2 kids each couple. Well now the groups number is up to 44, then with the next generation it will inevitably go up. Most likely, the birth rate will be higher than the death rate, so..... you will loose this small group.

The only way to maintain the small group is to have some sort of control on birth rates, so some consensus would have to be formed among the group as to who should and should not have children. Wouldn't a ruling consensus defeat the purpose of anarchy?


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
    #1354127 - 03/06/03 06:03 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

oooh, another scary dictionary quote... on dictator:
1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
2 : one that dictates
not that it really matters here, but a dictator is not necesarily against the people, definition is only one having absolute power.

But... as I said... I don't think anarchy is the ultimate solution, but a cool idea that for a short period of time, with a small community (probably more than thirty, perhaps hundreds, even a few thousands) of devoted people, would work pretty well, perhaps better than most forms of a government. When the community starts to grow beyond control, and new ideas and an opposition arises, a government might have to be the only solution. But for a while, it will work. Those who oppose anarchy might even move out, and traditionally, anarchists and those who sympatize with them, live quite different from most people. I don't think a capitalist would ever settle in christiania, and if he/she was born into it, he/she would probably move out. It should not be too difficult to move away from such a small community, as you don't have to move far. And that goes for the isolated part to. I don't believe, in the relatively sivilized world we live in today, that any country would go to war on a small, peacefull anarchist society.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
    #1354667 - 03/06/03 09:20 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

. I don't believe, in the relatively sivilized world we live in today, that any country would go to war on a small, peacefull anarchist society.

So Norway is where dreamland is located, eh?

I think you are way too much of an optimist, not saying that is a bad thing, if anything, it is a good thing and more people should be like you, but I do think you are a little out of touch with reality.

I think there are many more evil people out there that would find some reason to attack the small, anarchist group, if for no other reason, to display dominance.



--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1354743 - 03/06/03 09:42 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

If i can image a world of peace, hope, and humanity living as one, why can't it happen?

because people will come along and take control and impose their will upon other people. until no such people exist, we'll have to have governments here to protect us from such people.... or at least that's what government should be about.

government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'... it is only when "government" becomes synonymous with "control" (and unfortunately, it usually has been) that "anarchy" becomes 'lack of government'.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: Skikid16]
    #1354766 - 03/06/03 09:55 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Damn... civilized, civilized. And I don't think Norway is so much more civilized than the rest of the western world (No pro-west propaganda here, just the fact that if western countries feels the urge to wage war nowadays, they do so in the middle east or Africa). You'd probably know better than me, but I still don't think a free state in the US would suffer much external agression. Remember, we're still talking relatively small and isolated, shouldn't be much of a bother to anyone.

Edited by yelimS (03/06/03 09:56 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1354773 - 03/06/03 09:57 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

governments here to protect us from such people

But what if surrendering our fate to a small power elite ensures the destruction of the human race and the planet? Which appears to be the case? I have doubts we're going to last another 1000 years at the rate we're going.

Do we simply continue to abdicate responsibility and hope our masters will save us all?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1354793 - 03/06/03 10:06 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'... 




ha ha, I like your thinking :smile: However, I fear a corrupt government more than individuals. Individuals who disturbs the peace are far easier to stop, and tough stopping someone who opposes the community is quite anti-anarchistic, a corrupt government is just as anti-governmental. No one is perfect, and I like to choose the lesser of two evils, which I in small communities believe to be anarchism. For a country of millions, I'd go for some socialist government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
    #1354798 - 03/06/03 10:07 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

But what if surrendering our fate to a small power elite ensures the destruction of the human race and the planet?

then we are in very dire circumstances indeed. this power elite is not there to protect our rights; they do not serve in the legitimate role of government...

I have doubts we're going to last another 1000 years at the rate we're going.

of course we aren't. things are going to change alot. they have to. time will tell just how though...

Do we simply continue to abdicate responsibility and hope our masters will save us all?

no we don't. we do everything we can to foster a legitimate government which properly serves in it's only valid role, as a protector. sometimes this may include writing letters. sometimes it may include attending demonstrations. sometimes it may be running for office. maybe someday we will need to violently revolt. america was originally founded with the idea of a minimal government which served only in a "protector of freedom" role in mind. we've moved very far from it.

unfortunately, we are continuing to move farther away from the ideal government and closer and closer to a larger, more omnipresent and powerful establishment. usually at the hands of crooked "conservatives" or well meaning, but ultimately self-defeating liberals.

when it comes to government, i say smaller is better.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1354822 - 03/06/03 10:18 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

If i can image a world of peace, hope, and humanity living as one, why can't it happen?

because people will come along and take control and impose their will upon other people. until no such people exist, we'll have to have governments here to protect us from such people.... or at least that's what government should be about.

government is not necessarily a bad thing. ideally, the government is here to protect our freedom, and never to take it away. you have more freedom under a good government than under "anarchy". i mean... if "anarchy" means that people aren't allowed to force their will on others... then the government's job is to essentially just 'preserve anarchy'... it is only when "government" becomes synonymous with "control" (and unfortunately, it usually has been) that "anarchy" becomes 'lack of government'.



You understand the dilemma quite well. Governments will arise out of anarchy, as is evidenced by human history. So we should find some way to preserve as much of anarchy as possible while keeping some minimal mechanism to fend off those who would attempt to obtain power and control over others (some people use the term 'minarchist' to describe this viewpoint). However, it is difficult to find a historical example of a government (no matter how well intentioned it's founding) that didn't grab increasingly more power and eventually ruin the source of it's power by suffocating the freedoms and draining the wealth of its populace. (I see this as the future history of our current U.S. government - ALL great nations/civilizations fade after a time.)


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
    #1354835 - 03/06/03 10:25 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

yes, but if a government were established, with its only purpose, as explicitly outlined in its constitution as: to protect the people from violent attacks and to mediate and resolve civil disputes... how could it be corrupt? how could it be corrupt without clearly and obviously stepping outside its constitutional duties? we have corrupt government now because the government is in bed with the market, and host of other reasons, typically caused by the fact that the gov't is large and 'does a lot of stuff'.. the government plays alot of other roles than as a "protector". it is big, complicated, and yes, corrupt.

a system could indeed be established and sustained in which the government simply 'preserved anarchy'... kept people from imposing their will upon others. in 'anarchy' as "no government" there is no one to prevent people from imposing their will upon others... this is not a situation in which anyone enjoys much freedom.

it was from anarchy (meaning here, no government), that the most oppressive, totalitarian despotisms and tyrannies first evolved. (i'm speaking of the monarchies and dictatorships of times long ago). a few hundred years ago, some people started thinking about government and some folks got sick of that and realized that the only real purpose of government is to protect freedom... and set out to create a system in which that was the case. we've gotten off track though.

it is possible to form a government which performs it's only true function, and does it well. unfortunately... there's no place we can go to try it out.

For a country of millions, I'd go for some socialist government.

you do know that socialism requires a large, powerful, central government which forcefully imposes high taxes on the people? socialism is pretty damn far from anarchy.

Edited by mushmaster (03/06/03 10:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1354863 - 03/06/03 10:48 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

I don't consider taxes to take a toll on my personal freedom. I believe it is necessary for any large community to have a national income (taxes) to pay for hospitals, education and so on. However, with the abuse of taxes, military budgets, etc. that we have today, I see your frustration.
And I think I misunderstood what you maent by a government, I thought you to be against all forms of anarchism. A "minarchy", as described by Evolving seems to me like a great idea, I've thought of it before and don't know why I've forgotten to mention it here. Some government, given as little power as possible, and open for anyone to join, could be a great way to control an anarchy. Additionally, I am not against taxes in an anarchy (probably wouldn't be a 'real' anarchy, but still... ), by anarchy I think giving the power back to the people, but I don't consider economic freedom anywhere near as important as other freedoms. Who's going to pay for hospitals and education if no one has to?

Hmm... I think my reasoning is becoming a little weird. It be late. Must sleep. Gollum, gollum. Please ignore this post if you disagree:)

taxes=good if not abused
control=good and necessary
power to state=bad
power to the people=good if controlled
free the weed=damn im tired

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: anarchy [Re: yelimS]
    #1354900 - 03/06/03 11:11 AM (21 years, 18 days ago)

I don't consider taxes to take a toll on my personal freedom.

i think that being forced to buy something i don't want to buy is certainly a toll on my freedom.

I believe it is necessary for any large community to have a national income (taxes) to pay for hospitals, education and so on.

all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1355499 - 03/06/03 05:17 PM (21 years, 18 days ago)

all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.

Never seems to work that way. Once your sole goal is profit all sorts of terrible things happen to the people you're supposed to be caring about.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: anarchy [Re: Xlea321]
    #1355660 - 03/06/03 07:18 PM (21 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

all of these functions could be provided more cheaply and more effectively by the private sector.

Never seems to work that way. Once your sole goal is profit all sorts of terrible things happen to the people you're supposed to be caring about.


Alex, have you studied economics at all? I ask because of posts like this, it seems as though you have no grasp on reality......

Ok, so you think because goods and services are provided for a profit and not out of goodwill they are more expesive and less effective. Am I right?

So you think if things were done out of goodwill and less profit, they would be done cheaper and less effective?

Are you saying that you would prefer a more socialistic society?





--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineyelimS
bohem

Registered: 02/03/03
Posts: 717
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: anarchy [Re: ]
    #1355835 - 03/06/03 11:20 PM (21 years, 17 days ago)

They could perhaps. If hospitals and education could be privatized, and still be free to those who can't afford them, I'm all for it. But my "dreamland" Norway used to be a very socialistic country, and still is more than most other, but people are thinking more and more profit. That has NOT improved standards.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Teotzlcoatl 6,962 63 07/27/07 03:57 PM
by Teotzlcoatl
* Opinions on Anarchism
( 1 2 all )
glowing 934 20 07/24/13 12:58 PM
by NetDiver
* Someone help an anarchist out.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
psychedelicbath 5,070 63 09/22/14 04:28 PM
by zappaisgod
* Why have anarchist tenets not taken hold within the world?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )
shivas.wisdom 3,984 185 02/15/22 10:58 AM
by Brian Jones
* Who has some literature about anarchists and antifascists? Ahab McBathsalts 537 15 09/14/20 03:31 PM
by Falcon91Wolvrn03
* Government? How about anarchy
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Yellow Pants 2,107 98 06/05/19 07:19 PM
by Morel Guy
* Anarchist libertarianism
( 1 2 3 all )
airclay 2,855 40 02/15/16 08:31 PM
by akira_akuma
* Question On Anarchy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
lines 8,335 148 08/13/10 12:29 AM
by communeart

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,356 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.