Anarchism / Voluntarism

[AleMonteiro]

Hey fellas,

Do you think it's possible to live in a organized society that doesn't have a government? And why?

I can't remeber when I lost faith in our current system, it's been a while for sure. Year after year is getting more clearer to me that we need radical changes in the way we live. We need to evolve in manners to evolve in consciousness.

The government that should, theoretically, protect and provide for the population are often caught protecting and providing for large coorporations while restricting the power and liberties of the people.
I don't believe that any politician could bring real change to our lifes(for the better), most of them say they would but what they really do is get richer and richer. The really rare and spare people that try to change it are marginalized by the mainstream media, and because of the poor education(made poorly by choice of those who wants to perpetuate power) most of the people sits by and watches.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't lost faith in humanity, only in the system. I think government it's the biggest weapon of all times, and only a few have the right to use it, and most of the time they use it against the population.

Until now, with knowlodge I found on my humble research, I'm inclined to believe that only a anarchist society could break our chains and set us free for real. But anarchism is a strong word, many will associete it with chaos. But it isn't! It's just voluntarism!
Anarchism is free people contributing with free people to do what they judge best for them selves, their family and their friends.

"Oh, but without the goverment and the police who would protect us from bad people?", one could ask. So let me say: the biggest and baddest organized crime that exists in plain sight is the government and it uses cops as it's gun.

In my view, any country that allows alchool consumption but doesn't allow marijuana or any other "drug" is, besides hypocrite, not free at all. If an adult can't decide for his self what to do with his own consciousness, he isn't free.
Another example: You mom calls you sick and sounding really in trouble, you get your car and go the fastest you can to her... but the fastest you can is not always allowed by the government. So you could actually be stopped by the police and even go to jail because you're trying to reach your mother.

I know there's always some bad people that will try anything to get it easy for them, and we can't change that. Some still believe that we need government and police to protect us from those people, but we really don't. In fact it's way worse when those bad people are in positions of power, that they crave for.

Keeping it "short", I belive so much in humanity that I believe we could live way better, in reall harmony with us and the nature, without anyone that rules over us. I believe that are lots more good hearted than genually bad people. The real problem I see, is that good hearted people not always stand up for them, and for others, because of fear of repression, and even aggression, from the police and the government.

I'm from Brazil but I think this vision could be applyed in many, if not all, countries in the world.

Just one more tought: I think the good people in a anarchist society could be really effiecient in working togheter assited by an Open Source Society Colaboration Software =)

So, what do you think?

The best anarchism video I have ever watched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kobrwhxgkgQ

[hericles]

Unfortunately, I think the answer is no. Humans are incapable of functioning in sufficiently large groups with leadership/authority in place.
You state the government is the worst organised crime but it isn't that simple. It takes organised effort to a variety of good things like food distribution, infratructure, health care, etc. Sure, governments can be (and are) corrupt, or more exactly, are full of corrupt people.
As Plato said, power should be given to those that least want it. A government staffed by truely alturistic, intelligent people wouldn't be a bad thing.

You gave an example:
"Another example: You mom calls you sick and sounding really in trouble, you get your car and go the fastest you can to her... but the fastest you can is not always allowed by the government. So you could actually be stopped by the police and even go to jail because you're trying to reach your mother."
It's not the best example because if your mum really is in trouble you aren't the best person to help her. Either she needs the police and/or and ambulance (if only because they can get there faster/safer) or her problem isn't so severe that you need to drive at dangerous speeds, endangering innocent people around you.

Your rights stop when they could, even just potentially, harm others.

"Anarchism is free people contributing with free people to do what they judge best for them selves, their family and their friends."
And that, also unfortunately, is awfully close to tribalism. What happens when your family decides that my land is best served being controlled by you? Who arbitrates that? or do we just fight it out?

Our societies are amazingly complex and fractured by religions, cultures, differing political views and people of vastly differing maturity and morals. That mess requires people in authority positions to try to control it all.
Government could work much better than it does, it just doesn't get the right people in control.

[AleMonteiro]

@hericles, thanks for the input, but I disagree in some points...

Humans are incapable of functioning in sufficiently large groups with leadership/authority in place.

You meant "without leardership", right? Because government is leadership/authority.
But even then, if people are not capable of deciding how to live, how are those same people capable of appointing someone to take the decisions for them?

I believe in leadership, but not in defined rules. Not in the military state. I believe in leadership of morals, of knowlodge and of passion. You follow those you believe in, not those that the majority tought was the least worse available option.

It takes organised effort to a variety of good things like food distribution, infratructure, health care, etc. Sure, governments can be (and are) corrupt, or more exactly, are full of corrupt people.

Organized effort doesn't need to be centralized in a instituition. The food available on the market wasn't grown, processed, transported and arranged by plans of the government. People and companies make stuff.

I agree that a government with smart and good hearted people could be great also, but I think this is more than an utopia than anything else. Bad people know that the best position for they to act as they wish is in positions of power, so they'll always fight hard to get there, they'll lie, kill, extort and etc to reach they goal.
So, the existence of a institucionalized power is in it self passive of manipulation. If there's no centralized power, there's no chance of it.

As Plato said, power should be given to those that least want it.

Or there could be no power over others.

It's not the best example because if your mum really is in trouble you aren't the best person to help her. Either she needs the police and/or and ambulance (if only because they can get there faster/safer) or her problem isn't so severe that you need to drive at dangerous speeds, endangering innocent people around you.

I know it's not the best, but is valid, it could be an emotional crisis. And about the dangerous speeds, it should be available. Everybody that drives undestarnd the risk of high velocity, to it self and to others, if an adult thinks he can do it, he should be able to without repercusions if he doesn't harm others.
It's the same with alcohool, you aren't punished for drinking, you're punished for harming others while drhunk, but the choice to drink is yours.

What happens when your family decides that my land is best served being controlled by you? Who arbitrates that? or do we just fight it out?

Why would I? You are already there, unless we're friends I don't have any motive to live on the same place you do. Let's say you have an good land with lots of minerals, you'd sure would exchange those minarals with the society to benefit every body. If you are sharing why would somebody wanna take it from you? And even if they did, yeah, it would fought out. And even then I think it's better, because it's way more honest than what we have today, that behind the curtains money flows from one pocket to another to take whatever they want.

Our societies are amazingly complex and fractured by religions, cultures, differing political views and people of vastly differing maturity and morals. That mess requires people in authority positions to try to control it all.

I partially agree, but I also think that people in power perpetuates and incentivates the every kind of duality to keep people fighting them selves, and not pay attention to the direction that the world is going. That is, in my option, a global centralized authoritarian government, and that's is what I most fear in my life.

A government staffed by truely alturistic, intelligent people wouldn't be a bad thing.
Government could work much better than it does, it just doesn't get the right people in control.

I agree, but I think it's more utopic than anarchism.

[AssertNull]

Why would I?

Why wouldn't you? Your premise is that Hericles "owns" very high quality land, perhaps better than yours. "Owns" is in quotes on purpose because without people in authority issuing deeds,without laws saying you can't just take someone else's land, without police to arrest you if you do, without judges to decide who's right, and without a jail for that judge to stick you in if he decides you stole Hericles' land, the concept of "ownership" needs to be redifined. There is also no societal taboo against you just deciding to take Hericles' land by force. If you're bigger, stronger, meaner, and better armed than someone with high-quality land, why wouldn't you take it? That's what animals do in nature.

You are already there, unless we're friends I don't have any motive to live on the same place you do.

I imagine you'd take all the land for yourself and evict, enslave, or kill Hericles. A "hostile takeover" in every sense of the word.

Let's say you have an good land with lots of minerals, you'd sure would exchange those minarals with the society to benefit every body.

Why would he care about benefiting everyone? If he had more minerals than he needed, he'd probably trade some of his excess minerals, but only if you had something he wanted. Captialism ya know.

If you are sharing why would somebody wanna take it from you?

Again, he's likely not "sharing" if he can help it. And even if he was sharing, why wouldn't I just take all he had if I thought I could? Why settle for "some" if I can have it all?

And even if they did, yeah, it would fought out. And even then I think it's better, because it's way more honest than what we have today, that behind the curtains money flows from one pocket to another to take whatever they want.

Well it definitely is honest, I'll give you that. And simple. And nasty, brutish, and short. :)

A group of people stuckin each other's presence will almost always end up making a "government" and some rules one way or the other. If one person can dominate everyone else, that government will be a monarchy and the law will be "I make the laws, you follow the laws or I'll kill you". If the ruler is benevolent, he might not start off that way, but he'll end up that way because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Eventually people decide that it's in their own best interests to have some rules. Whenever there are rules, there must be a method of arbitrating disputes and punishing those who violate those rules. That's "government". Even if you're the biggest, baddest dude on the block, you have to sleep some time, plus you may be able to win a fight against any one person, if they all get together and attack...

[dchrismoore]

I will try to break it down for you, just like you have to train a dog to not urinate in the house; you have to train a child to use a toilet. People do not come into the world intrinsically good. They come into the world intrinsically selfish and they only care about getting all they can for themselves.
I have raised three children and I know from personal observational data that you constantly have to tell them to not fight and to share. They don’t care how much the toys cost, they want them all, every time you go to the store, even though you already told them they can’t have it because you can’t afford it.
People are just big children and the only reason that people get along with one another is because of how their parents raised them and the laws that are in place to control their behavior.
I have also worked as a police officer (although I gave that up) and I have personally seen that people with no (or improper) early home training will do horrible things to one another over the most trivial things.
There will never be a ‘utopia’ in this world until all children are taught from infancy how to share and play nice. As long as you have that one kid that will bite to get the toy they want, you will have problems.
The reason we have a government is because we have to have some organization to work within to accomplish goals that are larger than a single person can accomplish alone.

[ddanbe]

Anarchism is indeed a great thougth, but it will never be. It's like Utopia.(Thomas More)
As we are all animals, we have it in us to survive. Only the fittest will do so.(Ch. Darwin)
So we all have to struggle to get some food to feed our offspring, for instance.
This could even result in war, but we are all civilized, right?
Neighbours and countries never fight of course. And games like soccer or football are in essence just two tribes fighting each other(tribe colors(colours) included)
So anarchism will never work.
That's why we have a government that imposes some laws upon us. Laws that are not always that good I admit.
But in democratic countries you can try to change the laws you don't like. (Can be a long process, but it's possible)

[Agilemind]

Anarchism is self-contradiction to the extreme. Anarchism requires a universal code of ethics and uniform values to work yet is supposed to be the ultimate in individual freedom.

For your example of speeding to get to you sick mother what if someone who lives between you and your mother thinks that cars are an abomination because they pollute and make noise etc... so they tear up the roads near their houses to prevent cars from driving there. Now you don't have the choice of whether to speed or not because it isn't possible to drive from your house to your mother's house, or you have to go in such a roundabout way it doesn't matter if you speed or not you'll be too late to help your mother.

Anarchism only works if everyone agrees on what is a sensible way to live, the only way to achieve that is through massive "1984" style brainwashing (actually even worse than that because there are cheats and rebels even in "1984").

[diafol]

Anarchism has been put forward by the anti-government and the rebellious, often without a cause - just those who don't like to be told what to do. It makes a great case for pointing out all the ills of Big Government, but it's a little light on how to implement general concensus. I imagine anarchic populations, in order to just get things done, eventually evolving into the type of governments that we see today - dictatorships, flavours of democracy, meritocracies. They could be utopic / dystopic, but probably very short-lived.

[Agilemind]

Historical evidence suggests complex society can only thrive with some sort of hierarchical power structure, as every "advanced" civilization (has e.g. large irrigation system or road network) has clear evidence of unequal wealth and power - be it democratic, dictatorial, theocratic, oligarchical or some mixture.