Why, if you are alive right now, you will never be free

+ anarchy is not what you think it is

no gods

no masters

Rules? Of course.

...?

Without a governing body (masters) or some kind of imagined supreme metric of morality (God), having rules requires that everyone agrees on the same rules and is willing to follow them.

Given how people can't agree on the simplest of things, I find that eventuality extraordinarily unlikely.

For humanity as we understand the term, any sort of anarchy or complete freedom is utterly impractical.

The main problem: anarchist will find themselves obsolete in such system and try to be anarchist to the same anarchy they asked for.

The best option is a noocracy. At least the ones that govern will know what they're doing, unlike nowaday's buffoons in power.

Do you have autism Unleashed?

Scritto da Skittzophrenic, 28.05.2015 at 13:34

Do you have autism Unleashed?

No, but I know a woman whose baby girl was born like that. You shouldn't joke about tragic things like that. How ironic that you consider me the horrible person, when you are what you are. Look in the mirror

The only people who know what anarchy means are the people who use the term. There are as many definitions of anarchy as there are people who use the term. The issue i think you bring is this:

'should anyone be subject to the will of another?'

If you answer 'no' then you respect free will...

If not, you are a master, and will eventually devolve to randomness. For without freedom, there can be no creativity, no novelty, and therefor, no evolution, advancement, higher order arrangements, or cooperation.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 29.05.2015 at 12:59

It would be good if it was possible to send you to Russia in 1991-999 where anarchism developed its true meaning. Or Germany 1945. Where people killed each other on the streets, no police, no order, no system. Just free will for everyone. Enough freedom to export as a national brand.

Maybe you, especially you, would like it first few days, but then comes hunger, hygiene, security, no one guarantees you food, soap, bullets. You might find food few times, but one time you will fail, will have to sleep with empty roaring stomach. You might protect yourself for few times from bandits, but once you might fail to that.

Then, with the same possibility we sent you there, we will return you here, and you will beg for order, police, surveillance, corporations, politics and leaders. You will staunchly defend current order, 1# advocate for stability.

Your archmasters Stomach and Fear are more powerful than you think.

Yes , obviously anyone who is going to kill each other is not respecting the free will of another, and so would fall into the 'devolving/master' category, towards randomness and eventually their own destruction.

I am unclear what you mean by the 'true' meaning of anarchism, but if you mean 'no order' and 'no system' then yes, anarchism will eventually take care of itself and lead to it's own destruction. However, i think a lot of people view anarchism as not offering up your independence and free will to the state, but instead taking responsibility for your own self-governance.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 29.05.2015 at 12:59

That's an extremely radical view of what anarchy actually would mean in real life... that would only happen in really punctual and extreme circumstances or in movies...

Tito be like

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 29.05.2015 at 14:13

Then extreme circumstances happen very easy: Fall of Rome, left Italy and half of Europe in anarchy, fall of Soviet Union, Fall of Nazi Germany. Fall of Iraq, Fall of Libya, Fall of Syria.

Check violence in Iraq between 2003 and 2015, before that they had law and order, today that violence and anarchism brought even more violent system - ISIS.

Do you consider the fall of a country / empire something easy or normal to happen? wow

ISIS has nothing to be with anarchism... I know that the USA invasion was a fuck up and it just made a whole country unstable and started terrorist actions against them but that still has nothing to do with anarchism as well. It's more like a rebelion.

I think anarchy and general lawlessness are different things.
when a government falls, it can no longer function, and so you have lawlessness, which is typically death and destruction if you have a control system in place.

this is different than anarchy - where you are your own 'control system' - as the first post says, there are rules... it's just that they you aren't subservient to another's rules.

Scritto da brianwl, 29.05.2015 at 19:34

I think anarchy and general lawlessness are different things.
when a government falls, it can no longer function, and so you have lawlessness, which is typically death and destruction if you have a control system in place.

this is different than anarchy - where you are your own 'control system' - as the first post says, there are rules... it's just that they you aren't subservient to another's rules.

When everyone has their own version of the rules, why is that in any way different from having no rules? Such a system is bound to fall apart sooner or later, because nobody is enforcing any rules.

Scritto da Skanderbeg, 29.05.2015 at 14:56

After fall of the empire/republic/kingdom comes anarchy. And i gave examples. When system(order) collapse, people live in anarchy and we have examples of that anarchy and what those people did in those times. They killed each other, nothing else.

Yes, I do understand. But my point is that in that situation, I wouldn't call that an anarchy but a total chaos. Anarchy seems something a bit different to me.

Scritto da International, 30.05.2015 at 00:20

When everyone has their own version of the rules, why is that in any way different from having no rules? Such a system is bound to fall apart sooner or later, because nobody is enforcing any rules.

===
May be best to describe the difference using an example:

Let us say a group of high conduct people agree that everyone in that 'group' should have a home and food, and that no one is to deprive another of this. (There isn't a single government on earth that supports this, and every past government that has tried is destroyed since it is contrary to present policy.)

The interpretation of the rule is clear. And the only 'enforcement' is if you disagree, you are not part of that group, and can join the low conduct people in the world where it is ok to starve people (destruction of body) and force them into paying rent (tribute) for the right to be warm.

Scritto da brianwl, 01.06.2015 at 10:14

Scritto da International, 30.05.2015 at 00:20

When everyone has their own version of the rules, why is that in any way different from having no rules? Such a system is bound to fall apart sooner or later, because nobody is enforcing any rules.

===
May be best to describe the difference using an example:

Let us say a group of high conduct people agree that everyone in that 'group' should have a home and food, and that no one is to deprive another of this. (There isn't a single government on earth that supports this, and every past government that has tried is destroyed since it is contrary to present policy.)

The interpretation of the rule is clear. And the only 'enforcement' is if you disagree, you are not part of that group, and can join the low conduct people in the world where it is ok to starve people (destruction of body) and force them into paying rent (tribute) for the right to be warm.

If I decide to use this brilliant invention called the rifle to deprive others of home and food, what's stopping me?

Such a society will fall apart very quickly because following the guidelines is a survival disadvantage.

Scritto da International, 01.06.2015 at 10:49

If I decide to use this brilliant invention called the rifle to deprive others of home and food, what's stopping me?

Such a society will fall apart very quickly because following the guidelines is a survival disadvantage.

Who told you they wouldn't defend their homes and food? LOL who told you they wouldn't shoot you before you manage to shoot them? Being in a group has the advantage of mutual help.

Following guidelines you say? May I ask for a further explanation of that sentence??

Scritto da RaulPB, 01.06.2015 at 12:04

Scritto da International, 01.06.2015 at 10:49

If I decide to use this brilliant invention called the rifle to deprive others of home and food, what's stopping me?

Such a society will fall apart very quickly because following the guidelines is a survival disadvantage.

Who told you they wouldn't defend their homes and food? LOL who told you they wouldn't shoot you before you manage to shoot them? Being in a group has the advantage of mutual help.

Following guidelines you say? May I ask for a further explanation of that sentence??

First, Raul, i had exactly the same question. =D

Second, if the survival advantage were in fact higher for groups that simply take from others, virus's would rule the world, and there wouldn't be anything larger than a single cell on the planet. That's not to say there aren't survival advantages to stealing and contributing only to your own survival, and nothing to the survival of anyone else ... i think this is plain to see. But if everyone did it, no one would become anything greater. It is the advantage of cooperation and free will that drives complex systems that benefit more than just the individual units of the system. It is because cooperative systems produce so much excess, that there is a lot of room for parasites and thieves to exist.

Scritto da brianwl, 01.06.2015 at 13:59

First, Raul, i had exactly the same question. =D

Second, if the survival advantage were in fact higher for groups that simply take from others, virus's would rule the world, and there wouldn't be anything larger than a single cell on the planet. That's not to say there aren't survival advantages to stealing and contributing only to your own survival, and nothing to the survival of anyone else ... i think this is plain to see. But if everyone did it, no one would become anything greater. It is the advantage of cooperation and free will that drives complex systems that benefit more than just the individual units of the system. It is because cooperative systems produce so much excess, that there is a lot of room for parasites and thieves to exist.

As an extension, it is because we have organized government that co-operative systems actually work.

Why work when you can steal? Co-operative systems only work when there's some supreme force intimidating people from stealing.

Have you heard of the "tragedy of the commons"? It's an excellent description of what happens in a society without state regulation.

Scritto da RaulPB, 01.06.2015 at 12:04

Scritto da International, 01.06.2015 at 10:49

If I decide to use this brilliant invention called the rifle to deprive others of home and food, what's stopping me?

Such a society will fall apart very quickly because following the guidelines is a survival disadvantage.

Who told you they wouldn't defend their homes and food? LOL who told you they wouldn't shoot you before you manage to shoot them? Being in a group has the advantage of mutual help.

Following guidelines you say? May I ask for a further explanation of that sentence??

Then it is not anarchy. Having the responsibility to defend others and the right to be defended by others is a form of government. A state.

As for the guidelines, I was referring to brianwl's post. Even if a bunch of elders gather and agree that stealing is bad, well, obviously following that guideline is a survival disadvantage because it means you don't have income from theft anymore. Rules are meaningful only when it is backed by violent force.

Scritto da International, 02.06.2015 at 01:10

As an extension, it is because we have organized government that co-operative systems actually work.
Why work when you can steal? Co-operative systems only work when there's some supreme force intimidating people from stealing.
Have you heard of the "tragedy of the commons"? It's an excellent description of what happens in a society without state regulation.
Then it is not anarchy. Having the responsibility to defend others and the right to be defended by others is a form of government. A state.
As for the guidelines, I was referring to brianwl's post. Even if a bunch of elders gather and agree that stealing is bad, well, obviously following that guideline is a survival disadvantage because it means you don't have income from theft anymore. Rules are meaningful only when it is backed by violent force.

Not true. You haven't got a real proof to state such thing. Humans have cooperated way before "governments" actually existed.
Also not true. In order to steal there must be something to steal first and secondly, there must be a need, either biological or circunstacional. We, as humans, have no need to steal if we can produce what we need. Besides, if your statement were true, today there would be no thiefs and that's not the reality.
Didn't you know that the tragedy of the commons is not a real life fact, but a mere imagination a guy came up with?? That's not "an excellent description" of nothing. It's only a dream, nothing scientifically proven. Besides, we are decimating our commons today because of governments, not because of our selfish selfs.
Who said nothing about responsability????? It's not a responsability, it's a favour you do to a comrade! It's something you are interested in doing when you're inside a community! WTF are you talking about?? Did people not defend themselves before states existed or what?? You're talking nonsense! People can act without a state having to babysit them!
So you're saying that this "theft income" is necesary for their survivance?? Bullshit, they will only come up with beneficial rules for themselves, it's obvious! Also, bad rules are backed by violent force in real life, nowadays, does that make them meaningful and beneficial for human kind survivance?? Violent force is only necesary to back up rules when these are not respected, when rules are not beneficial for its people, or when people are morons. But if smart enough people gather and form their rules (which happens in real life in case you didn't know!!) things work pretty well. A local example in Spain, in case you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Tribunal_of_the_plain_of_Valencia (declared Intangible cultural heritage by the UNESCO)

EDIT: you're too naive!!

Scritto da International, 02.06.2015 at 01:10

As an extension, it is because we have organized government that co-operative systems actually work.

I think Raul said it all, but just to emphasize: based on the information i have, cooperative systems pre-date organized government. If your premise were true, organized government would have had to come first, and then beings constructed by the organized government created to implement it (which sounds absurd, but to be fair to you, there are people who argue for this, and while seemingly improbable, not entirely impossible.)

As for the stealing being preferable to work, it is clear you are on the path of destruction. Many others enjoy creating things. Be it creating art, tending a garden, or helping someone you never plan on meeting again, none of these things are enforced and ordered by government, and they all involve 'work' and conscious effort - yet many people prefer these activities to stealing.

Put another way, it appears these constructive endeavors happen in spite of government, not because of it.

Scritto da brianwl, 02.06.2015 at 07:01

Scritto da International, 02.06.2015 at 01:10

As an extension, it is because we have organized government that co-operative systems actually work.

I think Raul said it all, but just to emphasize: based on the information i have, cooperative systems pre-date organized government. If your premise were true, organized government would have had to come first, and then beings constructed by the organized government created to implement it (which sounds absurd, but to be fair to you, there are people who argue for this, and while seemingly improbable, not entirely impossible.)

As for the stealing being preferable to work, it is clear you are on the path of destruction. Many others enjoy creating things. Be it creating art, tending a garden, or helping someone you never plan on meeting again, none of these things are enforced and ordered by government, and they all involve 'work' and conscious effort - yet many people prefer these activities to stealing.

Put another way, it appears these constructive endeavors happen in spite of government, not because of it.

A system of government has existed since well before collective endeavour.

What do you call the wise old man in the corner that settles disputes, if not "government"? It is a clearly respected authority that is universally recognized and is backed by the strength of its followers.

As for the cases of altruism you talk about, those are mostly based on an artificial system of morality, dictated first by spirituality and now sometimes also by organized religion. It is, simply put, unnatural. Spirituality and religion is a form of brainwashing also.

As I have said, I am a high school student. That means I can closely observe hundreds of other high school students. From my observations, I can absolutely guarantee that most of my peers here will gladly cheat and take advantage of others if they think they can get away with it.

Scritto da International, 02.06.2015 at 10:52

...
What do you call the wise old man in the corner that settles disputes, if not "government"? It is a clearly respected authority that is universally recognized and is backed by the strength of its followers.

As for the cases of altruism you talk about, those are mostly based on an artificial system of morality, dictated first by spirituality and now sometimes also by organized religion. It is, simply put, unnatural. Spirituality and religion is a form of brainwashing also.

As I have said, I am a high school student. That means I can closely observe hundreds of other high school students. From my observations, I can absolutely guarantee that most of my peers here will gladly cheat and take advantage of others if they think they can get away with it.

* Why does your wise old man not just order his men to steal everyone's things? Why go through the effort of settling disputes if stealing is superior? Is the wise man not showing his 'followers' a better way... through cooperation?

** People can be coerced into good behaviour... there is no arguing that... i'd say it's incredibly difficult to determine whether an individual is expressing themselves because they are in fear of punishment from government, or whether it comes from some other place. But if you believe that acts of selflessness are unnatural, you are speaking to the wrong person... instead, have this discussion with your care-givers when you were an infant. Were they paid? Were they coerced into caring for you? Was it unnatural, and they had to overcome their natural instincts and survival advantage to steal everything from you as a defenseless baby? Must have been exceptionally hard for them... Perhaps one day you will care for a baby, and it will evoke something inside of you that you never realized existed.

*** High school can be a highly competitive environment, based on scarcity. (There isn't enough $$$, there aren't enough jobs, so students need to participate in an artificial struggle for GPA dominance simply to have a future.) Government created the $$$ shortfall... they created the scarcity of jobs... and you are blind to the fact that they are doing this intentionally so that when the time comes, you will follow their orders and commands, and not question or critically examine what they are doing, for fear of losing your job. In essence, you have surrendered your free will already.

Scritto da International, 02.06.2015 at 10:52

As I have said, I am a high school student. That means I can closely observe hundreds of other high school students. From my observations, I can absolutely guarantee that most of my peers here will gladly cheat and take advantage of others if they think they can get away with it.

I've also been in high school... I still visit my old high school from time to time... the answer to that is simple: students are inmature jerks most of the times, very few exceptions to this rule are given; they know nothing, or very little, about the meaning of moral values. They usually learn about life when they grow up, life teaches them a couple of lessons (often the hard way) and become more mature, that's when they learn to collaborate and respect others.

Scritto da RaulPB, 02.06.2015 at 11:59

[....]that's when they learn to collaborate and respect others.

either that, or they become corporate lawyers.

Scritto da brianwl, 02.06.2015 at 17:59

either that, or they become corporate lawyers.

Or politicians. Basically the same.

Scritto da RaulPB, 03.06.2015 at 08:41

Scritto da brianwl, 02.06.2015 at 17:59

either that, or they become corporate lawyers.

Or politicians. Basically the same.

They both receive their training in the same place (law society/law school.) So yeah, i'd agree basically same.

He thinks the human species and even nature itself can exist without hierarchy.

Point and laugh, folks, point and laugh...

Scritto da Tik-Tok, 05.07.2015 at 18:50

He thinks the human species and even nature itself can exist without hierarchy.

Point and laugh, folks, point and laugh...

Eh. Not exactly. Small groups of up to 150 people or so can function without leaders, simply because it is possible for everyone to understand everyone else.

Leaders are only necessary for groups too large to run themselves.

Scritto da International, 05.07.2015 at 19:25

Eh. Not exactly. Small groups of up to 150 people or so can function without leaders, simply because it is possible for everyone to understand everyone else.

Leaders are only necessary for groups too large to run themselves.

There are 7 billion people. The average small town contains thousands of people. Cities hold millions. Even in a town of 150 people, some people hold higher status than others. Some will be wealthier than others. There isn't a single society in human existence that doesn't have a hierarchy. There never will be. This cannot be changed through education, it is hardwired into our DNA. The Food chain is a hierarchy, nature is hierarchical.

There will always be hierarchy, there will always be territories, power structures and power struggles. Anarchy is in total opposition to human nature.