Given Anarchy...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Cheomesh, Jun 28, 2008.

  1. Cheomesh

    Cheomesh Registered Member

    This came up with a guy a while back, who was a huge fan of "no leadership bodies", aka anarchy. He asked the question of "If, for arguments sake, the world suddenly was thrust upon to anarchy, how would you feel, and what would you do?" His response had to do with yacking off and going his own way with the substances he abuses, because nobody could ever bother him again. My response was a little more indepth, though by far not a "complete" answer, as it would probably take a good book to really establish that.

    Given anarchy, first thing on my list is murder. With no law enforcement and no organization to effect power, I would take this golden opportunity to eliminate a few enemies, both of morality and of politics. Directly after I would gather the people I know who would be loyal to me, and would be good group members to associate with in such times.

    I would then set upon all near by farms (as there are a few near by), and either convince them to be with me, or kill them and seize the land. It's a dick move, but without the organization of a political body, there isn't going to be any "food shipments" coming in from anywhere else in the country, or many factories still refining foodstuffs. Those closest to me would be charged with running said food sources, and will be required to give me a cut of the harvests for his partial ownership of the land. Those not given grants are charged with the defense of certain grants as well as scavenging, with an emphasis on tools and medical supplies. Buildings under our control will be retrofitted to deal with the downfall of electricity.

    Once the division of power is in order, laws will be enacted to establish rights of profit, division of labor and governance, and laws regarding defense. Given the tough situation, harsh penalties will be enacted for breaking them, as many would bring doom on the others if broken. The rest of our efforts would be spent extending a helping hand to those not so fortunate as to be so decisive; cruelty isn't my lifestyle. In exchange for food, shelter, and protection, all they have to do is work my land and assist in the defense of it if needed.

    Once the fires stop burning, so to speak, contact will be made with those who have established themselves as power bases near by, and organized trade established for what the other can produce that we cannot, and vice versa. I will also attempt to acquire as many skilled workers as I possibly can to assist our efforts.

    This is an honest, no BS assessment of my actions, though quite simplified. I extend the question to the rest of you -- Given Anarchy, now what?

  2. Elf1

    Elf1 Registered Member

    Given anarchy, what next?

    Just no laws? Yet I assume ethics and such still control?

    Wouldn't murder, but I would kill.

    For example, if someone were to try to break in to steal what I have, or rape and pillage, then kill for sure.

    Anything to survive. Not just for me, but my family.

    But I wouldn't actively go out and hunt someone just because they made me angry.
  3. Duke1985

    Duke1985 EatsApplePieShitsFreedom

    Lock my self in a bunker filled with guns. Leaving to loot and farm. If its a post-apocalyptic anarchy I think I'd become Kevin Costner in the Postman.
  4. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    It all depends on the details of the situation. If we're talking some anarcho-syndicalist kinda anarchy, then going around shooting people would get you voted off the island (or however those things work in direct democracies...). I doubt we're talking some anarchist utopia, though, given the tone of the OP, and instead something like all social order spontaneously breaking down? I suppose I would build a shack somewhere secluded and grow and hunt whatever I needed. Or maybe I'd find some like-minded folk and go start a farm somewhere. Who knows? All I know is that these ideas are far more romanticized in my head than they really should be. ;)

    Or, actually, the first thing I would do is find and shoot Cheomesh, in order to stave off the feudalistic society he apparently wants to lord over.... :p:lol:

    Edit: I do wonder, though, how long it would take modern nation-states to reemerge given something like this. I doubt we would have to go through all the stages that it took for them to manifest in the first place, given that the population, philosophy, technology, etc; would already be in place to some degree. In fact, that all makes it very difficult to imagine a modern nation-state like America breaking down spontaneously like that in the first place. There would have to be a catastrophe of some sort, I would think.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2008
  5. Doc

    Doc Trust me, I'm The Doctor. V.I.P.

    I wouldn't even consider murder. I'd get myself as far as humany possible away from civilization. Imagine all of the world's nuclear weapons in the hands of militia groups.

    I'd live in the wilderness and travel with the seasons.
  6. Obdurate

    Obdurate Registered Member

    I know this thread is like a month old but here I am being a rebel.

    I apologize if you know this already Cheomesh or I've misunderstood your intentions in this thread, but I'm going to quote certain parts of your post :p

    My first problem, unless we're using a really broad definition of "leadership." Anarchism is no leadership -- like government, the prime example those would use -- but anarchists also oppose things such as capitalism and private property, among some others. If that guy is just defining anarchy as that then he's simplifying it too much.

    His own failure to work within the community would make it that he'd never be able to receive goods. He'd have to be really damn good at producing everything he needs to survive, which is possible, but I would imagine it's pretty unlikely if you want to retain a decent standard of living.

    And ExpectantlyIronic kind of touched on this but the anarchy that you're talking about isn't even sustainable anarchy. It can not come about over night, meaning we aren't thrusted into it. It's a slow process, like any change that may or may not (an argument for a different thread) come about.

    It's a big misconception of anarchy. No political body does not mean there isn't organization or ways of dealing with people who want to make a mess of things. You would not get away with murder anymore than you would right now. There would be a "police force" (using the term VERY loosely) of sorts created but it would be based around the community, instead of a central body.

    People would organize themselves. We don't need others to organize for us (well, right now we do, but I mean, given sustainable anarchy, we wouldn't).

    I think a lot of your post is just built on misconceptions of what anarchism actually is. But I admire your willingness to be honest and say you'd kill people ;)

    To those who equate anarchy with chaos, that's wrong. Even the dictionary has one or two definitions revolving around that, and while the word may have taken a meaning of chaos over the years, it is actually insulting to a well thought out idea to call it chaos, when the intention was never to cause chaos.

    For further proof, aside from reading up on it which is necessary, look at the anarchy A. It stands for order and balance.

    With that said, thrusting into an anarchist society right now would cause chaos. Anarchists (mostly) know that.
    Even I have just simplified anarchy. Go me.
  7. Matriqulated

    Matriqulated Future is Fused 3036A.D.

    SLC punk FTW. He broke it down very well by the end of that film. It's all BS. It is fun to imagine but is fundamentally flawed. There is too much in place to revert back to caveman laws, not that I think anyone really wants that anyway, it was just cool to talk about.

    And I think a global catastrophe would actually bring people together vs create a state of permanent chaos. Though I guess that would all depend on the specific event.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2008
  8. SuiGeneris

    SuiGeneris blue 3

    And thats where something like anarchy could truly be effective. Given a catostrophic event, it could break down the government far enough where survival is the first thing on people's minds. You would see people group together and work together to survive. There would be no third party controlling them, it would ultimately be them fighting for their own survival again.
  9. Matriqulated

    Matriqulated Future is Fused 3036A.D.

    Well, in order for me to pick a side I'd have to have an idea of the event being discussed. I mean if it is something so bad that it wipes out most major cities and their buildings, along with law enforcement and government all together, sure there would be a period of chaos. But I guess what I'm getting at is depending on how much 'rebuilding' is required, that would probably determine how long it takes for people to get organized. I really doubt that people would just accept running around looting and pillaging as a way of life for very long based on having had the spoils of what we have already been exposed to.
  10. Obdurate

    Obdurate Registered Member

    Okay, first of all, SLC Punk is a mostly horrible movie. It's only mostly horrible because it's so misguided it ends up being hilariously bad. But it's still bad and it misses concepts. It doesn't break down anything. It's Anarchy Insults For Dummies. It overly simplifies an in depth theory.

    As for you not thinking anybody wants it that way, do you just mean caveman laws or anarchy? They're two different things... but if you mean anarchy then you'd be wrong. | Your Online Anarchist Community , Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer would like to have a word with you.
    Anarchists have played important roles in quite a few revolutions/protests.
    A list of past and present anarchist societies: List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    More links: Other Anarchist Web-pages

    So yes, people do want anarchy. Not everyone but it's pretty clear there is a pretty big group. But you won't hear much about that on the news or anything because well, 1, they're scared shitless of it.

    I mean, if you don't want anarchy, that's your business for sure and I respect that, but please don't use SLC Punk as a manifesto lol

Share This Page