ANARKY! In the G.Net (An Anarchist Discussion Thread)

[D0PPLEGANGER]

The problem is that a lot of people, especially these days, value individual freedom over everything else and they seem to do this unthinkingly. They live in some distorted fairytale where 'natural' equals good and 'unnatural' unequals bad.

They say governments are unnatural. They say Laws are unnatural. They say it'd be better if they could saunter naked through city parks and jostle gently against one another in the fountains. They want to see anal fisting and cock vomiting in the local multiplex cinema. If 13 year old boys consent to sex, who are we stop them they say.

These are the anarchists. And these would be the first people to fall in the state (!) of their own making.

[D0PPLEGANGER]

edit. I meant of course - "where 'natural' equals good and 'unnatural' equals bad".

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by D0PPLEGANGER

The problem is that a lot of people, especially these days, value individual freedom over everything else and they seem to do this unthinkingly. They live in some distorted fairytale where 'natural' equals good and 'unnatural' unequals bad.

They say governments are unnatural. They say Laws are unnatural. They say it'd be better if they could saunter naked through city parks and jostle gently against one another in the fountains. They want to see anal fisting and cock vomiting in the local multiplex cinema. If 13 year old boys consent to sex, who are we stop them they say.

That would be AWESOME.

Seriously though, where's the harm in any of that stuff? The only one I could see being destructive is the 13 yr old sex thing, but even that's not an issue if they have their shit together regarding contraception. Doesn't sound like a bad world you're describing, although it really has very little to do with anarchy on a non-superficial level.

[Despanan]

Wait...pedophillia is okay now, so long as there's a condom involved?

Did I miss a meeting?

[Apathy's_Child]

Wait, I misread that. I was thinking of sex BETWEEN thirteen year olds rather than with adults. Though in all honesty, there was a hot young teacher at my school when I was thirteen who probably wouldn't have scarred me for life......

On a side-note, it's not technically pedophilia if they've hit puberty.

[Still Jack]

Also, what's wrong with doing stuff unthinkingly. I go about my business on a daily basis, almost unthinkingly. No tragically bad repercussions have happened yet.

Also, In conjunction to what apathy said. I think 95% of people had teachers that they would have screwed given half a chance, I know I did.

[D0PPLEGANGER]

Y'all know I'm talking about tha' creepy old men.

[D0PPLEGANGER]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

That would be AWESOME.

Nah. I want to see giant bipedal robots with assault cannons gunning down scum in the streets just like in Robocop.

[D0PPLEGANGER]

Originally Posted by Still Jack

Also, what's wrong with doing stuff unthinkingly. I go about my business on a daily basis, almost unthinkingly.

It is always bad to hold beliefs unthinkingly. Many people today value individual freedom above all else unthinkingly. They say that what’s natural is always good and what’s unnatural is always bad, unthinkingly. They fail to acknowledge that humans are a type of creature that have developed by working against nature and that humans have distinguished themselves by becoming less natural.

Laws are unnatural. But there are plenty of things which are better as a result of law. For example, we could argue that it is 'natural' for stronger people to r*pe weaker people when their compulsion dictates. But in law, it is never acceptable under any circumstances. This is utilitarianism at work and it is a human invention (what we’re calling unnatural in this strict context). On the contrary, in nature, there is no punishment for r*pe.

My basic point here is that it’s laws like the age of consent (it matters not whether you think it should be a little lower or a little higher) that humans invent to ensure their own survival, to advance their species socially, intellectually, morally, and even genetically for that matter. Are some laws retarded, sure, but as society advance, laws can only become more sensible. Drugs will be legalized, same-sex partnerships approved and animal cruelty punishable by death (!).

If you believe that there should be no laws or almost no laws, then you must admit that the first laws to go, should those that are discriminatory. And age of consent laws are technically discriminatory against children.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by D0PPLEGANGER

Nah. I want to see giant bipedal robots with assault cannons gunning down scum in the streets just like in Robocop.

THAT, would truly be awesome.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by D0PPLEGANGER

If you believe that there should be no laws or almost no laws, then you must admit that the first laws to go, should those that are discriminatory. And age of consent laws are technically discriminatory against children.

You mistake laws for social codes of conduct. Anarchists are against laws because almost all of them are made for social control and the protection of property.

Look at the Kalahari Bushmen. They have no laws. Why? Their tribe is 35 people, they don't need laws. People in that group know exactly what is right and what is wrong.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

You mistake laws for social codes of conduct. Anarchists are against laws because almost all of them are made for social control and the protection of property.

Look at the Kalahari Bushmen. They have no laws. Why? Their tribe is 35 people, they don't need laws. People in that group know exactly what is right and what is wrong.

...and that is why they are such a dominant global power.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Despanan

...and that is why they are such a dominant global power.

Who gives a flying fuck about being a dominant global power?

[Still Jack]

I wouldn't mind it at times. My voice blaring my ideals out of speakers all day long. Kind of attractive at times. It would be much to stressful to do alongside of university though...

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Who gives a flying fuck about being a dominant global power?

When you're talking about the viability of anarchism, you can't use a group of thirty-five people as an example of a functional society unless the world splits into two million communities.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by JCC

When you're talking about the viability of anarchism, you can't use a group of thirty-five people as an example of a functional society unless the world splits into two million communities.

Fair point, however they do prove that humans are not inherently greedy. There is a Native American tribe that has a similar society without laws in a larger population but I do not remember their name.

[Cicero]

Pretty much all immediate-return hunter gatherers prove humans aren't inherently greedy. Their only codes of social conduct (you could call them 'laws', but the usual punishment is just being made fun of) require people to share everything they have.

It just doesn't seem to work so well in large, sedentary groups, unfortunately.

[alchemie]

Sternn is right.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Anarchy cannot exist IRL. In every environment where true anarchy prevails, sooner or later someone will organise a large number of people and take over.

Thats the reality of true anarchy - nature hates a vacuum.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Fair point, however they do prove that humans are not inherently greedy. There is a Native American tribe that has a similar society without laws in a larger population but I do not remember their name.

No, they really don't. At least not in any sense that wouldn't also prove that humans tend to be more group-oriented when their survival is tied directly to all members of that group (and hence, still inherently self-interested).

Not that I think humans as a species are inherently greedy, mind you, nor really posses any inherent character traits across-the-board. Humans by-and-large are products of their environments and their genetics.

However, humans, like everything else on this planet, by and large do posses a certain degree of inborn self-interest. I wouldn't really call it greed per se, it's really something more primal than moralistic or ethical notions. It's more of an inborn tendency to favor the interests of one's people over the interests of others. There's even a hierarchy as to how much we tend to value others, ie:

We tend favor our people (Nation, religion, race, culture, etc.) over other peoples, we tend to favor our region over other regions (ie: sports rivalries and the like) we tend to favor our friends over strangers, and our families over our friends, ourselves over our families, and our children, the continuation of our genetic line, over ourselves.

Now there are exceptions of course, usually based upon environmental factors, but this is pretty much a good guideline for how we conduct ourselves. I mean even when someone breaks off from their own group in favor of another (Expatriating, disowning one's family, changing one's religion etc.) this basic attitude doesn't really change, it's just applied to different groups. This isn't just applied to humans either, plenty of other animals posses this instinct (particularly pack and herd based animals).

In allot of ways this is a good thing, this is a behavioral tendency which has been a big part of why our genetic lines are still around. We evolved to think this way.

I guess what I'm saying in an amazingly roundabout way, is that it is the nature of all organic life to subvert and consume other organic life. Humans and other species however, have evolved a natural aversion towards eating their own kind. This helps the species as a whole survive.

These two instincts sometimes fight against each other, to deal with this the human mind often times does some mental gymnastics in order to reconcile it's own behavior. Therefore, when you are preparing to subvert another organism (particularly another human) you need to convince your mind that the organism in question is not "your kind". This makes it easier to perform the action. This process is called Pseudospeciation ie: you're not robbing from "Steven", you're "getting what that cracker stole from your grandfather". You're not ****** "Jennifer" you're "giving that whore what she was asking for". You aren't forcing a tribe of people from their homes, you're "dealing with those heathen cock-suckers" etc.

These societies, like the Bushmen and the nameless "Indian tribe" are able to function without laws because they are so small, and must constantly interact with everyone else on a daily basis. It is much harder for the brain to convince itself that the other members of the tribe are not human, and thus it is much harder to commit a crime/harm/exploit another person for personal gain.

In essence, it is this situation which leads to the ability to function without a written system of laws. You don't need any rules for how to interact with strangers because there are no strangers to interact with. You're giving their political system (or in this case, lackthereof) the credit for their situation, when in fact, it's the other way around.

This is why, when you introduce a system like communism, or anarchism, on any kind of realistic scale it falls apart, and/or becomes a tool of oppression-- Because, like those factory workers in Argentina, it is the situation in question that motivates the behavior. When you change the situation but still keep some of the rules/organizing principals, the behavior changes.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

As I understand it, anarchy as a political ideology depends on universal consensus before action, with any "government" serving solely as an advisory body. The advisory body is just that, and has absolutely no powers of taxation, legislation, enforcement, etc. Is this correct?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Who gives a flying fuck about being a dominant global power?

A lot of people, apparently. How many great empires have there been over the course of human history?

Kinda gives the lie to the idea that people aren't inherently greedy and violent.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Pretty much all immediate-return hunter gatherers prove humans aren't inherently greedy. Their only codes of social conduct (you could call them 'laws', but the usual punishment is just being made fun of) require people to share everything they have.

It just doesn't seem to work so well in large, sedentary groups, unfortunately.

If this is the case then why did any hunter-gatherer societies evolve into more modern, industrial, expansionist societies?

By your logic - that of too great a population rendering a peaceful hunter-gatherer primitivism unsustainable - the only reason I can come up with is that the population eventually got too large. If this is, indeed, the case, which I'm not saying it is, then wouldn't that mean that natural population increase would also lead, naturally, to an abandonment of primitivism and on to something more technologically and politically advanced?

Following this line of reasoning, we would have a counter-intuitive inversion: the supposed "unnatural" growth of population, industry, globalization, pollution, war, etc., is all, in fact, part of the natural way of things. Empire is natural!

Congrats, mate. You've just justified every rapacious empire in history. Way to go. Guess the only thing left to do is dust off the ol' pith helmet and load the Maxim gun. Because, after all, it's what we're MEANT to do.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I should note that when I speak of "unnatural population growth" in the third paragraph of my previous post, I'm talking about how modern medicine has kept many alive who, in less technologically advanced times or places, would've died.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

If this is the case then why did any hunter-gatherer societies evolve into more modern, industrial, expansionist societies?

This 'evolution' you speak of is one of the biggest questions in archaeology, and anyone pretending to know the perfect answer to it is full of shit.
Here's a basic run-down of current thought on it: when hunter-gatherers started intensive cultivation of plants - or any other form of food production, fishing was a common one - they created a food surplus (WHY this happened is still up for debate, but it seems pretty obvious that the logic behind it was probably along the lines of 'more food = a good thing'. Quite understandable). Control of that food surplus created the first instance of 'property', and a early inkling of social hierarchy. The extra food also allowed for population growth beyond anything a hunter-gatherer society could sustain and it snow-balled from there through the other 'stages' in 'socio-political evolution' into tribal societies, chiefdoms and eventually states. Or at least this is how they like to teach it in elementary school. The somewhat more complex reality is what people fill archaeology and anthropology journals with.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

By your logic - that of too great a population rendering a peaceful hunter-gatherer primitivism unsustainable - the only reason I can come up with is that the population eventually got too large. If this is, indeed, the case, which I'm not saying it is, then wouldn't that mean that natural population increase would also lead, naturally, to an abandonment of primitivism and on to something more technologically and politically advanced?

I like how you tried to answer this 'biggest question in archaeology' with 'population got too large'. And assuming it was a 'natural' population increase just makes it even better - things stopped being 'natural' the moment we started creating our own food supply. If hunter-gatherer societies experienced natural population increases they'd be fucked.

Also, what I said wasn't 'my logic', rather it was based on the well known explanation for the difference between hunter-gatherer societies and non-hunter-gatherer societies (immediate vs. delayed return. Look it up).

And I don't know where you got an argument for primitivism out of what I said.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Following this line of reasoning, we would have a counter-intuitive inversion: the supposed "unnatural" growth of population, industry, globalization, pollution, war, etc., is all, in fact, part of the natural way of things. Empire is natural!

Congrats, mate. You've just justified every rapacious empire in history. Way to go. Guess the only thing left to do is dust off the ol' pith helmet and load the Maxim gun. Because, after all, it's what we're MEANT to do.

See above. 'Natural' not applicable to humankind after around 10,000 - 6,000 BC

[Equivalence]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Following this line of reasoning, we would have a counter-intuitive inversion: the supposed "unnatural" growth of population, industry, globalization, pollution, war, etc., is all, in fact, part of the natural way of things. Empire is natural!

While Cicero covered most of your argument, I wanted to point out one thing: Just because it is natural, doesn't mean it's morally right. This statement essentially refutes your argument. While it is natural for me to urinate, doing so on your lawn is considered quite rude.

So even if empires were the natural outcome of expanding populations, acknowledging such a fact does not instant justify their actions.