Ture Anarchy does not exist.

[SHIT-TANK]

I've had a very large interest in sociology as of late. For about the past year I've taken classes, read books ecetcetera, you know as a hobby. But recently I've come to the conclusion that pure anarchy absolutely does not exist among humans.

Looking through the sociological perspective humans are the most social beings on the planet (obviously) and because of such we crave order. In every group no matter what the beliefs or customs there is always a leader, someone to be revered. Furthermore no matter how much we may claim a distaste for social order (rules) we subconsciously create them between interaction with eachother.

Sumner perhaps catorgerized this phenomenon best with his system mores and folkways. For example is a crime and (for some people) against religious teachings to murder somebody, but why? It is because any rational person is able to feel the fact that they ended a person's life without reason, this is know as a mores. Flokway are the customs that every culture creates for themselves, for example in America if two men were to formally meet in a social setting a handshake would be expected, if one of the persons did not partake in the folkway then subsequently the other person may be offended, this is an example of a folkway. There is no inherent obligation to carry out a folkway nor is there a punishment but it just proves the point.

No matter where we are, or what we beleive, we as human beings will always create a social structure. The idea of anarchy is relative to the definition to the individual defining it. For example I may think that anarchy would be a primitive tribe somewhere in South American, but opposite could also be true.

I think that it's just really interesting no matter what our political views, or even personal likes or disdains for our fellow man, we will always create a patternized way of interaction.

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 12:33 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: ...humans are the most social beings on the planet (obviously) and because of such we crave order....

I've quoted this before, but "Anarchy means 'without leaders,' not 'without order.' " Yes, I'll take my political theory from a comic book, just so long as it's a really, really brilliant and sophisticated comic book.

That said, you're right. It doesn't exist. It hasn't existed at any point in recorded human history... at least on a large scale.

But, I think it could. We'll always need leaders of some sort--experts to call the shots in whatever the endeavor of the moment happens to be--but I see no reason for those positions to be permanent, or even of fixed duration. As things stand, the vast majority of organizations exist primarily to preserve their own existence. Stupid. In my more optimistic moments, I envision a future society capable of building loose organizational structures for specific purposes, then tearing them down once their purpose has been served. That kind of organization would be truly wise and mature.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[Minarchist]

Social order is independent of government, even developing despite the best efforts of government to stop it. Spontaneous order is a phenomenon that is also independent of government.

Thus, the desire for order and a social structure can be satisfied without government.

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 12:50 PM, Minarchist wrote: ...the desire for order and a social structure can be satisfied without government.

I agree. Absolutely.

[poxpower]

At 11/16/08 12:50 PM, Minarchist wrote: Social order is independent of government, even developing despite the best efforts of government to stop it. Spontaneous order is a phenomenon that is also independent of government.

Thus, the desire for order and a social structure can be satisfied without government.

Good luck building roads and Hoover Dams without a central government.

Social order works great when you have a tribe of 10 monkeys, beyond that, Anarchy is entirely worthless. Anarchists are just anti-government losers who usually have nothing to offer in return. They're the creationist of politics.

[SHIT-TANK]

At 11/16/08 12:50 PM, Minarchist wrote: Social order is independent of government, even developing despite the best efforts of government to stop it. Spontaneous order is a phenomenon that is also independent of government.

Thus, the desire for order and a social structure can be satisfied without government.

They may very will be independent, but from chaos come order. We will create goverment, just like we have for thousands of years.

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 01:09 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: ...We will create goverment, just like we have for thousands of years.

No doubt about it. But small, fast, temporary, and based on merit will turn out to be the strongest model.

That's not airy-fairy talk. It's only common sense.

That world is ours, if we can take it.

[marchohare]

Adaptability: it's what's for dinner.

[CBP]

There is but one flaw in your logic. Psychos. Sociopaths, schizophrenics, as well as other mental disorders will sometimes deviate from the natural order of things due to their mental instability. Several insane people have sought to create a world where every man is for himself. There is this guy on death row in China for trying to build an atom bomb so that he could start a nuclear holocaust and the survivors would be forced to fend for themselves. Needless to say he didn't get far, but assuming that somebody with the proper training had this disorder, he could do it.

[Nitroglys]

Ok so not only is anarchy a human inpossiblity, it has also damned its own movements to failure beacuse you can never have an anarchy party/group/organiztion. That is an oxymoron.

[SHIT-TANK]

At 11/16/08 02:20 PM, CBP wrote: There is but one flaw in your logic. Psychos. Sociopaths, schizophrenics, as well as other mental disorders will sometimes deviate from the natural order of things due to their mental instability. Several insane people have sought to create a world where every man is for himself. There is this guy on death row in China for trying to build an atom bomb so that he could start a nuclear holocaust and the survivors would be forced to fend for themselves. Needless to say he didn't get far, but assuming that somebody with the proper training had this disorder, he could do it.

Theres always exceptions to every rule. People who are void from human emotion or people who do not know any better make up a very small percentage of humanity. Sociology teaches people to look at patterns of human behavior as a whole, not isolated instances.

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 03:25 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: Sociology teaches people to look at patterns of human behavior as a whole, not isolated instances.

And those patterns tend to be more promising than we give them credit for being.

"Altruism," on the other hand, does not usually make news, unless it's a phony marketing scam.

[Helloworld00]

But, in the sense that anarchy is "without a leader", isn't a pure and direct democracy an anarchy? There is no single true leader; everybody takes part in government and has an equal share of responsibility and power. Therefore, Athens in ancient Greece would have been an anarchy, although they are now revered as the first form of direct democracy and democracy overall in history. THE WORD "anarchy" SHOULD NOT EXIST BECAUSE IT HAS NO MEANING. Anarchy is impossible, except in pure communism, but pure communism is called pure communism because anarchism is impossible. *Phew*

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 04:09 PM, Helloworld00 wrote: ...isn't a pure and direct democracy an anarchy?

No. Not as we understand "democracy." Democracy is where the best marketeers win.

I'm expecting more out of my fellow human being than that.

[Al6200]

No matter how sophisticated society becomes, I have a gut feeling that anarchy and nature will always exist in one place or another.

Consider that your body is a highly sophisticated of cells that are descended from free cells which lived in anarchy, but are now subordinated to the will of your body as a whole. Your heart cells don't focus on their own needs, they focus on the needs of the body. Your brain cells don't get nutrients or reproduce by themselves, they just get nutrients from other cells and focus on their job. But even as multicellular colonies hold huge amounts of power, there are still feral bacteria in your body. There are still bacteria outside of your body. In fact there are still rebellious cells in your body that refuse to submit or be controlled. We call those cells cancer, and sometimes they manage to overthrow and (kill) the entire system.

In the same way, even as individual humans are being subordinated by the human society, there are still fringes of people that aren't controlled by the society. There are still unorganized rebels that can bring down nations. There is still anarchy.

I desperately want to express that quantitatively as an equation - a universal equation. But unfortunately the numbers are beyond me...

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 04:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: Consider that your body is a highly sophisticated of cells that are descended from free cells which lived in anarchy, but are now subordinated to the will of your body as a whole....

Why? Not only does your analogy fail to describe reality, it's not even grammatically correct.

No, I won't consider that! Not "can't," won't !

Try again.

[Al6200]

At 11/16/08 04:44 PM, marchohare wrote:

Why? Not only does your analogy fail to describe reality, it's not even grammatically correct.

Huh? Do you have a reason to believe that it is a false analogy, other than there being a minor grammatical error?

It makes sense that organisms or their colonies will have similar sorts of strategies and structures, given that the equations for population dynamics and evolutionary games are not relative to the size or structure of the players.

No, I won't consider that! Not "can't," won't !

Try again.

Oh noes, I accidentally left out the word colony. You've exposed a gaping hole in my argument. As we all know - the basis of a person's argument is how many minor grammatical mistakes they make.

(not to come off as nasty here, but you did just take what I said and call it wrong with no evidence other than the fact that I accidentally didn't type one word).

[CBP]

Theres always exceptions to every rule. People who are void from human emotion or people who do not know any better make up a very small percentage of humanity. Sociology teaches people to look at patterns of human behavior as a whole, not isolated instances.

That's true, but anarchists are themselves very small percentage of humanity. The only difference between the two is that those who know what they are doing is wrong but do it anyway can be executed if they take it too far, and those who have no ability to distinguish that what they are doing is wrong can't. The exception to your rule would be these people, but this is good for the proving of your rule because since every rule has an exception, this exception gives further credibility to your rule.

[Bacchanalian]

At 11/16/08 04:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: In fact there are still rebellious cells in your body that refuse to submit or be controlled. We call those cells cancer, and sometimes they manage to overthrow and (kill) the entire system.

Your cells don't have will to begin with, so cancer is not rebellion. Cancer is just as involuntary as typical cellular operation - for the cell. The cell has no concept of the body.

In the same way, even as individual humans are being subordinated by the human society, there are still fringes of people that aren't controlled by the society.

You missed something far more obvious, that we live our daily lives without considering our government. On a perceptional level, we live most of our lives in anarchy, worrying more about social issues of local proximity.

Also. Government. Not society. Or at least be clear that the society you're addressing with the word is the governmentally sanctioned one.

I desperately want to express that quantitatively as an equation - a universal equation. But unfortunately the numbers are beyond me...

Have you been watching Pi? o_O

I'd think the variables are beyond you as well. Looks like you've still got both the quality and quantity to worry about.

[Conspiracy3]

No pure theory has ever existed.

No communist state today practices true communism. There is always someone (usually close to the leaders) who is favored over another with bias.
No capitalist state today practices true capitalism. There is always some kind of government interference.
No democracy is true democracy. There is always some kind of corruption taking power away from the people.
No dictatorship is a true dictatorship. The dictator still has to negotiate with it's nations own noblemen as well as religious leaders and foreign leaders.
No theocracy is a true theocracy. There is always some kind of secular agenda in a nation.
No hereditary aristocracy is a true hereditary aristocracy. There is always some method at which by ones actions status can be raised or lowered.
No meritocracy is a true meritocracy. There is always some bias towards one's friends, relatives, etc.

You get the point right?

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/16/08 04:15 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/16/08 04:09 PM, Helloworld00 wrote: ...isn't a pure and direct democracy an anarchy?

No. Not as we understand "democracy." Democracy is where the best marketeers win.

I'm expecting more out of my fellow human being than that.

That would be an oligarchy. But as of today most Democracy's have strong oligarchical aspects to them.

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/16/08 03:25 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: Theres always exceptions to every rule.

Is there an exception to the rule of always having an exception?

[marchohare]

At 11/16/08 09:11 PM, Al6200 wrote: ...(not to come off as nasty here, but you did just take what I said and call it wrong with no evidence other than the fact that I accidentally didn't type one word).

Nah. What I did was post while shitfaced. I'm not even sure what I was thinking when I typed the crap in those posts. Apologies.

[CBP]

At 11/17/08 10:37 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 11/16/08 03:25 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: Theres always exceptions to every rule.

Is there an exception to the rule of always having an exception?

Yes. All humans die physically. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, this law is without exception.

[Ayem]

At 11/16/08 12:33 PM, SHIT-TANK wrote: I've had a very large interest in sociology as of late. For about the past year I've taken classes, read books ecetcetera, you know as a hobby. But recently I've come to the conclusion that pure anarchy absolutely does not exist among humans.

Looking through the sociological perspective humans are the most social beings on the planet (obviously) and because of such we crave order. In every group no matter what the beliefs or customs there is always a leader, someone to be revered. Furthermore no matter how much we may claim a distaste for social order (rules) we subconsciously create them between interaction with eachother.

There is social order in anarchy (In fact, the circle around the A in the anarchy symbol is actually an "O" which stands for order.)
And through interaction with each other is exactly how it is created.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anar chism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus