If there were NO laws in society...
- Thread starter *bratcat*
- Start date
RhumbRunner13
No alts, no "Iggy"
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Posts
- 3,463
No laws?
Road Warrior!!!
RhumbRunner
Road Warrior!!!
RhumbRunner
bored1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 1,831
I think that society is held together by a very fine thread,I dont think it would take much for for chaos to reign supreme. For many it would be everyman for himself, A mob rule mentality so to speak.I think that many people would go crazy if they had to deal with food shortages or fuel shortages everything we take for granted. Just witness riots that have taken place in various American cities over the years,Wide spread looting,burning and some deaths.While the excuse to riot may have been some "perceived social injustice"The end result was the same,Chaos. I would like to say that my own beliefs would not be compromised, But who knows what one would do when faced with life and death situations.*bratcat* said:
Most people would probably like to believe they could still live their life the way it is now. With no moral or societal (is that a word?) breakdowns.
The truth is, there are tons of people out there who would love to snag your stuff, hurt you, break you down. We would change out of neccessity.
I think if there was an enclosed society, a clan if you will, there could be a possibility of a normal life within it's safe boundaries. Otherwise no. I think we would be very primal and uncivilized.
In another word, chaos.
The truth is, there are tons of people out there who would love to snag your stuff, hurt you, break you down. We would change out of neccessity.
I think if there was an enclosed society, a clan if you will, there could be a possibility of a normal life within it's safe boundaries. Otherwise no. I think we would be very primal and uncivilized.
In another word, chaos.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
You should read Hobbes' Leviathan. You may find it fascinating. Here's an excerpt:
"CHAPTER XIII OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY
NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.
From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.
And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.
Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. "
The upshot is that man will constantly fight with others over competition (for resources), defense of self and property from threats real or imagined, and for glory or possession of things, tangible or intangible. Because man is constantly fighting with others (in a state of war), his life will be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes calls this the "natural state." We call it anarchy.
Locke had a few things to say as well. Essentially that man is imbued with three intrinsic rights: life, liberty, and the right to own property. (Sound familiar?) Men, when in a state of nature, have no security from others. Each individual is in a position to exact punishment and justice from others for transgressions real or imagined if that individual is more powerful than the preceived transgressor.
Here's an excerpt:
"Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination amongus, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.
Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature."
In short, survival of the fittest, baby. (Spenser, not Darwin.)
"CHAPTER XIII OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY
NATURE hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.
From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.
And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.
Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. "
The upshot is that man will constantly fight with others over competition (for resources), defense of self and property from threats real or imagined, and for glory or possession of things, tangible or intangible. Because man is constantly fighting with others (in a state of war), his life will be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes calls this the "natural state." We call it anarchy.
Locke had a few things to say as well. Essentially that man is imbued with three intrinsic rights: life, liberty, and the right to own property. (Sound familiar?) Men, when in a state of nature, have no security from others. Each individual is in a position to exact punishment and justice from others for transgressions real or imagined if that individual is more powerful than the preceived transgressor.
Here's an excerpt:
"Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination amongus, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.
Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature."
In short, survival of the fittest, baby. (Spenser, not Darwin.)
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
*bratcat* said:
Afghanistan is a small-sacle model of what the world would be like without civil laws. Warlords and Mystics would rule by force of arms.
JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone, at least to a point.
I think at first Spencarian ideas will take hold, but that's only going to last so long. As happens so often in the world, the masses are only going to take so much oppressing before they rise up, bloodily. Then the "fittest" get smacked down and there's a new regime.
What modern times have brought us is the idea that there is a better way of doing business than Spencer envisioned. Of course the ancient Greek Domocracy was there as an example and it worked darned well for a while. Spencer overlooked that, IMO. We have a better way of doing things and I believe that once folks simmer down, they'll see that the best way was the way they had before. There was less being beaten down and more general security for them, individually, and for society as a whole.
IN short...sure, there'd be some oppressin' going' on, but that's not going to last long. Coup after coup after coup until some folks get the bright idea that you can re-estblish a democratic form of government.
There've been lots of fictional books on this subject.
I think at first Spencarian ideas will take hold, but that's only going to last so long. As happens so often in the world, the masses are only going to take so much oppressing before they rise up, bloodily. Then the "fittest" get smacked down and there's a new regime.
What modern times have brought us is the idea that there is a better way of doing business than Spencer envisioned. Of course the ancient Greek Domocracy was there as an example and it worked darned well for a while. Spencer overlooked that, IMO. We have a better way of doing things and I believe that once folks simmer down, they'll see that the best way was the way they had before. There was less being beaten down and more general security for them, individually, and for society as a whole.
IN short...sure, there'd be some oppressin' going' on, but that's not going to last long. Coup after coup after coup until some folks get the bright idea that you can re-estblish a democratic form of government.
There've been lots of fictional books on this subject.
Drifter014
Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Posts
- 59
just my opinion
I think it might chaos for awhile, but i think it will all boil down to about the same as we have now.
I think the criminals will keep there way of live, and the rest of society will live thier life the way are used to, and do what the can to keep thier lives that way
I think it might chaos for awhile, but i think it will all boil down to about the same as we have now.
I think the criminals will keep there way of live, and the rest of society will live thier life the way are used to, and do what the can to keep thier lives that way
Mellon Collie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,229
*Sigh*
I am a Social Anarchist, and I believe that the world we live in could and should operate without our current form of government and eventually with none at all.
Among Left-anarchists themselves, there are some who imagine returning to a much simpler, even pre-industrial, mode of social organization. Others seem to intend to maintain modern technology and civilization (perhaps in a more environmentally sound manner) but end private ownership of the means of production. It is in my belief that existing firms would simply be turned over to worker ownership, and then be subject to the democratic control of the workers. Mine and most other Left-anarchist's view of law is what legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure. Almost all violent crime is actually caused by poverty and inequality created by existing law. A small residual of violent crime might persist, but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Because punishment has no effect on crime, especially crimes of passion, criminals should not be judged as evil, but rather treated as we now treat the sick and disadvantaged - with some sort of social program geared toward helping with any problems they are faced with.
Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Contrary to popular belief, Western democracy is not only bad but inferior to a very different but realistic alternative.
I am a Social Anarchist, and I believe that the world we live in could and should operate without our current form of government and eventually with none at all.
Among Left-anarchists themselves, there are some who imagine returning to a much simpler, even pre-industrial, mode of social organization. Others seem to intend to maintain modern technology and civilization (perhaps in a more environmentally sound manner) but end private ownership of the means of production. It is in my belief that existing firms would simply be turned over to worker ownership, and then be subject to the democratic control of the workers. Mine and most other Left-anarchist's view of law is what legal thinkers call "customary law": an unwritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior backed up primarily by social pressure. Almost all violent crime is actually caused by poverty and inequality created by existing law. A small residual of violent crime might persist, but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Because punishment has no effect on crime, especially crimes of passion, criminals should not be judged as evil, but rather treated as we now treat the sick and disadvantaged - with some sort of social program geared toward helping with any problems they are faced with.
Winston Churchill famously remarked that, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Contrary to popular belief, Western democracy is not only bad but inferior to a very different but realistic alternative.
Last edited:
JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
Mellon Collie said:
As much as I'd like to believe that something like this can ever happen, I'm confronted with two incontrovertable facts about humanity.
One, humans are incredible bastards and there's never going to be a time where we're going to be able to live in harmony, using mere social pressure to cure our ills. I think we have ample instances where that's been tried and failed. Social pressure works to a point, but it lacks the "bite" that you have to have to not only punish crime, but to deter crime in the very beginning.
Two, there will always be inequality, because humans are hierarchal creatures. Even with an absence of organization, humans will organize and beging to establish a pecking order. In short time there will be haves and have-nots and the same old problems arise. That's where society starts and we can't really avoid it, as much as we'd like to.
I also disagree with our statement about violent crime. Though it has been surmised that poverty and legally-caused inequality causes violent crime, it's far from proven. I would tend to believe the latter might provoke violent crime, but, from history we've found that most of the violence perpetrated by that has been against the lower class by the upper class.
My own take on violent crime, just based on my own personal job experiences is that violence is caused mostly by ignorance. I can safely say that I've rarely seen the well-educated perpetrate crimes of violence on each other, or on anyone else. My own solution would be to educate as many people as well as we possibly can, which would go far toward solving the problems.
But, even with that, dissolving one government is only going to ensure that another arises shortly thereafter. We can't help that, I don't believe. It's in our natures.
Mellon Collie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,229
I'm going to go a little off track but it will pull together in the end, I promise.
'The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of non-governmental groups who murder and destroy property for political aims believe that government ought to exist and that they ought to run it. The large majority of anarchists -- especially in modern times -- fervently oppose the killing of innocents on purely moral grounds (just as most non-anarchists presumably do, though anarchists would often classify those killed in war as murder victims of the state). Terrorism has been very effective in establishing new and more oppressive regimes; but it is nearly impossible to find any instance where terrorism led to greater freedom. For the natural instinct of the populace is to rally to support its government when terrorism is on the rise; so terrorism normally leads to greater brutality and tighter regulation by the existing state. And when terrorism succeeds in destroying an existing government, it merely creates a power vacuum without fundamentally changing anyone's mind about the nature of power. The predictable result is that a new state, worse than its predecessor, will swiftly appear to fill the void. Thus, the importance of using nonviolent tactics to advance anarchist ideas is hard to overstate.'
The best route is through education and expansion of the voluntary alternatives to capitalist society: voluntary communes, cooperatives, worker-owned firms, or whatever else free people might establish to fulfill their own needs while they enlighten others.
JazzManJim said:
'The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of non-governmental groups who murder and destroy property for political aims believe that government ought to exist and that they ought to run it. The large majority of anarchists -- especially in modern times -- fervently oppose the killing of innocents on purely moral grounds (just as most non-anarchists presumably do, though anarchists would often classify those killed in war as murder victims of the state). Terrorism has been very effective in establishing new and more oppressive regimes; but it is nearly impossible to find any instance where terrorism led to greater freedom. For the natural instinct of the populace is to rally to support its government when terrorism is on the rise; so terrorism normally leads to greater brutality and tighter regulation by the existing state. And when terrorism succeeds in destroying an existing government, it merely creates a power vacuum without fundamentally changing anyone's mind about the nature of power. The predictable result is that a new state, worse than its predecessor, will swiftly appear to fill the void. Thus, the importance of using nonviolent tactics to advance anarchist ideas is hard to overstate.'
The best route is through education and expansion of the voluntary alternatives to capitalist society: voluntary communes, cooperatives, worker-owned firms, or whatever else free people might establish to fulfill their own needs while they enlighten others.
JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
Re: I'm going to go a little off track but it will pull together in the end, I promise.
Perhaps.
I'll say that these alternatives have been available and known for a lot of years, yet they remain marginal and largely unsuccesful in the long term. There have been exceptions, of course, and there always will be. I don't see them working on any large-scale. People just aren't that interested in those alternatives. I couldn't tell you why not, to any great degree. They just aren't. Even the Soviet Union, originally the great socialist experiment died in a wallow of corruption and powermongering. I don't see them as viable.
They'd be nice. It's be damned Utopian, but I think we'd be working against human nature that that's an insurmountable thing. So we use the next best thing. We use what works for the largest number of people we can get.
Mellon Collie said:
Perhaps.
I'll say that these alternatives have been available and known for a lot of years, yet they remain marginal and largely unsuccesful in the long term. There have been exceptions, of course, and there always will be. I don't see them working on any large-scale. People just aren't that interested in those alternatives. I couldn't tell you why not, to any great degree. They just aren't. Even the Soviet Union, originally the great socialist experiment died in a wallow of corruption and powermongering. I don't see them as viable.
They'd be nice. It's be damned Utopian, but I think we'd be working against human nature that that's an insurmountable thing. So we use the next best thing. We use what works for the largest number of people we can get.
Mellon Collie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,229
And to lighten this up.....
Wasn't communism in Russia enforced? The whole idea is kind of ruined when you have some dude with a gun in your face screaming that you better be a communist or die. And you can't have a czar - that's just stupidity
Revised plan: Keep all the intellectual and socially moral people here and we'll ship the rest off to some distant planet and hope they're too war torn to figure out how to build some sort of intergalactic cruiser and come ruin things for us.
JazzManJim said:
Wasn't communism in Russia enforced? The whole idea is kind of ruined when you have some dude with a gun in your face screaming that you better be a communist or die. And you can't have a czar - that's just stupidity
Revised plan: Keep all the intellectual and socially moral people here and we'll ship the rest off to some distant planet and hope they're too war torn to figure out how to build some sort of intergalactic cruiser and come ruin things for us.
JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
Re: And to lighten this up.....
Well, it was, but it was enforced by the very people who had advocated its origin. They ended up being corrupted by the system itself, which goes a long way toward showing why, as a large effort, it wouldn't work.
I'd go for the revised plan. Unfortunately, I'd be one of those you'd ship off to another planet. See, I'm intellectual and moral, but I also know how humans work at their worst. That's why we need the guns around.
Mellon Collie said:
Wasn't communism in Russia enforced? The whole idea is kind of ruined when you have some dude with a gun in your face screaming that you better be a communist or die. And you can't have a czar - that's just stupidity
Revised plan: Keep all the intellectual and socially moral people here and we'll ship the rest off to some distant planet and hope they're too war torn to figure out how to build some sort of intergalactic cruiser and come ruin things for us.
Well, it was, but it was enforced by the very people who had advocated its origin. They ended up being corrupted by the system itself, which goes a long way toward showing why, as a large effort, it wouldn't work.
I'd go for the revised plan. Unfortunately, I'd be one of those you'd ship off to another planet. See, I'm intellectual and moral, but I also know how humans work at their worst. That's why we need the guns around.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
JazzManJim said:There've been lots of fictional books on this subject.
Not to mention the afore-mentioned Road Warrior/Mad Max and other movies and TV series about post apocalypse societies.
I happen to think that many of them are pretty accurate predictions of wht will happen if the rule of law collapses.
Interestingly, there is a new Showtime Series beginning Sunday March 3 that deals with re-establishing civilization.
It may not be exactly germaine to this discussion because the premise is a world 15 years after a "super-virus" kills everyone past the age of puberty.
The show is Jerimiah, starring Luke Perry and Malcom Jamal Warner. It premiers Sundy March 3 at 8:00 PM on Showtime cable network.
Astro
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2001
- Posts
- 873
Humans are merly animals with big brains, and animals aint peacefull. Gorilla's actually raid other gorilla's territory to kill them for no other reason than to weaken that group.
Anarchy is a nice idea, so is communism it's my own belief that neither will work, however I will fight to defend Mellon Collie's right to believe that it will.
The democratic states lost by the way! Athens fell to Sparta, then all of Greece fell to Philip 2nd. The home of democracy fell to a strong army led by a strong leader, and thats what would happen if society broke down. I think many millions, prob over a billion people would die - where do u get your food? City living aint a good living post-law and order.
There has never been a golden age and laws all boil down to the states control over the police and army who can act as a violent force for that state.
Survival of the fittest (Darwin & Wallace), might = right, peace through superior fire-power, golden rule- those with the gold rule.
Mankind is an animal with a thin layer of culture overlayed. What would you not do to protect your wife, your children, your home? When there is no army, no police to come to your aid will you turn the other cheek?
Anarchy is a nice idea, so is communism it's my own belief that neither will work, however I will fight to defend Mellon Collie's right to believe that it will.
The democratic states lost by the way! Athens fell to Sparta, then all of Greece fell to Philip 2nd. The home of democracy fell to a strong army led by a strong leader, and thats what would happen if society broke down. I think many millions, prob over a billion people would die - where do u get your food? City living aint a good living post-law and order.
There has never been a golden age and laws all boil down to the states control over the police and army who can act as a violent force for that state.
Survival of the fittest (Darwin & Wallace), might = right, peace through superior fire-power, golden rule- those with the gold rule.
Mankind is an animal with a thin layer of culture overlayed. What would you not do to protect your wife, your children, your home? When there is no army, no police to come to your aid will you turn the other cheek?
Mellon Collie
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,229
Astro said:
That is untrue. Animals (I will not say all but most) instinctively reach some sort of equilibrium in their given environments and we as humans do not. That is one hell of a difference. They do not kill just to kill, your examples of Gorillas killing with no reason other than to invade and acquire territory is a reason in and of itself. It's survival of the fittest in their world and that is what the fittest do.
And the idea is that in a state of Social Anarchy these measures of protection would not be needed. People would not behave in a negative way out of mutual respect for one another. And don't get me wrong, I'm not some fruitcake tree-hugger, I do realize that this is not possible as of right now. But I do want to stress that the problem lays within the people and not the plan, unfortunately we were blessed with a race of idiots and assholes. Anarchy can be achieved but mass education and awakening is needed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
