Agnostic.com

7 2

Let's see who I can piss off today . . . .

THHA 7 June 8
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I can't imagine how human beings could have a functional society without a system of government. Humans are too greedy, petty, vindictive, stupid, lazy, and ignorant. Without law and order we would quickly degenerate into a society of warlords, slavery, and widespread poverty.

While some people might work together in communes there would be those who would use force and violence to take what they wanted. History has already shown this to be true and women, children, and minorities would suffer the most.

Anarchism would only work in a much more technologically and intellectually advanced civilization in which all basic needs (food, water, healthcare, material needs) are taken care of and their is an abundance of free energy.

0

Still waiting to be pissed off.

1

so something like a commune or collective?

Sometimes like a network of those, informally. There is anarco-syndicalism and anarcho-individualism.

There is more to it than that, but if you were to look them up, you can get a better sense of what they are.

@thexter reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail and the peasants anarcho-syndicalist commune.

1

Not pissed off...try harder 😉

0

Democracy >> Monarchy >> Anarchy

There is a reason that Monarchs could hold power for hundreds of years. It's because even though Monarchy sucked, it was much better than anarchy.

BD66 Level 8 June 8, 2019

A Democracy or a Monarchy are better than chaos,
Anarchy (Noun) in the context it is used here is not chaos, they are not even synonyms (other than in an inaccurate colloquial/slang sense), anarchy is an as yet untested on a large scale political ideology that is probably too idealistic and at odd with human greed to succeed.

1

It is not that we cannot, because we obviously do, it is that we should not, it is illogical and it is extremely dangerous to do so, but it is convenient and if historical anthropology teaches us nothing else, there are two facts it does teach a) it is that populations en masse will always take the path of least resistance and B) that those who actively seek power are those least well suited to have it.
So why do we do it?
Because it is inevitable, even in an anarchy the scum will rise to the top and call itself the cream. It will offer compliance and call it freedom, ignorance and call it common sense, and hegemony and call it peace.
Because most people want neither the responsibility that comes with leadership or the restraints of conscience to be a just leader. So will gladly hand it over to someone else who they can moan and bitch about, blame when things go badly and praise when they go well. In exchange for this they will allow a certain amount of corruption and leeway with acceptable cultural constraints

1

While I agree we can not trust our lives to any of those named, I suppose I would ask how would you define anarchy - a collective working together equally or individuals doing as need be to survive. The later would bring a rise to bully dictators in a smaller realm.

Humans in their current form are simply incapable.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:358056
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.