Jives

I'm not sure Anarchy was the word you were looking for, but maybe that's just my concept of anarchy. I did like the idea that came after that, it just doesn't fit with the definition of anarchy I usually use.

Anarchy is a state of social equality and consensus-based decision making. An (without) arch (ruler). It's the opposite of a situation where people's will is nonconsensually given over to other people because they're "superior" people, or because they are compelled to by violence. Examples of anarchy are when you and your friends hang out, when a project team collaborates together to complete a task, when you go out to the store to exchange money for food instead of threatening to kill someone to get it, and whenever you have the opportunity to live your life without fearing violence or the disapproval of a ruling class of people.

Basically, the term's a nice combined catch-all for "true democracy" and "civil rights".

I guess your opinion of "anarchy" depends on what you think of human nature. Without rule could mean we all get along together, or it could mean all hell breaks loose. At this point, culturally and socially, I'd be more inclined to say all hell would break loose without some system of support than everyone would just go live free and happy. If there are no rulers, there are no rules, and there is the opportunity for corruption, with the stronger preying on the weak. This is why I would suggest a different word, because it could go either way depending on someone's personal philosophy or view of the world.

I would tend towards using the ideal form of "socialism" as Karl Marx saw it. I don't know. I'm just picky, and the word Anarchy bugs me for some reason.

I guess your opinion of "anarchy" depends on what you think of human nature. I didn't really discuss my opinion of anarchy, only the definition thereof. At this point, culturally and socially, I'd be more inclined to say all hell would break loose without some system of support than everyone would just go live free and happy. I'm not sure what the absence of "some system of support" has to do with what we're talking about. If there are no rulers, there are no rules The fallacy here is assuming that violence and social inequality are somehow appropriate methods of achieving peace, an opinion that is wildly popular among the Republican party. When you hang out with your friends, do you murder them when you get angry, or treat them as lessers because of the color of their skin? If not, do you avoid doing these things because you have been coerced by people with more physical or social power than you? I'm just picky, and the word Anarchy bugs me for some reason. I'm picky too. That's why I use the word anarchism to describe Proudhon, Bakunin, and Goldman's anarchist philosophy, not the media's "fireballs and broken glass woah totally awesome we should use a wicked rad word like ANARCHY to describe this" silliness.

I'm just saying if you're going to use the an (without) arch (rule) then you can't just pick one side of it. Some groups of people would do fine without a ruler, they'd be able to work out disagreements on their own, but some would not. Because of our high level of interdependence it would be very hard to coordinate everything without someone watching over it all. You see it differently. That's fine. I just don't think anarchy should be used to describe one side of the story. Of course, I probably wouldn't be arguing as much if you had just left out this word and gone with your definition. But now I'm irked, and would rather argue the definition of anarchy than do homework. an-ar-chy 1) A social structure without government or law and order.

Okay, maybe I'm not stopping, because this bugs me too.

"The fallacy here is assuming that violence and social inequality are somehow appropriate methods of achieving peace, an opinion that is wildly popular among the Republican party. When you hang out with your friends, do you murder them when you get angry, or treat them as lessers because of the color of their skin? If not, do you avoid doing these things because you have been coerced by people with more physical or social power than you?"

I guess right now what we're really debating is no longer what we think anarchy really is, but whether or not we think that we need a government. I would say we do. Yes, our government is not doing a particularly good job right now, but that doesn't mean we'd be any better off without any government at all. I'm also not supporting violence or social inequality, I'm simply trying to state that both of those could happen in an anarchic state. Just because there's no government "oppressing" lower class (or supporting them for that matter, as there are many organizations struggling to do just that) doesn't mean once the government's gone they will rise up and be one with everyone else. It would be an interesting social experiment to get rid of the government, but I'd want to be far away when it happened.

Also, where the fuck did that last bit come from?

Dammit, it posted before I was done. Now I have three replies.

What I meant about the last bit is, friends are a poor example. Friends are influenced by so many factors, and oftentimes people are influenced against having certain friends due to color of skin or economic class, but those are more inherent social ideas, that come from families and theologies than governmental ideas. Sure groups of friends could get along without a government, but it's the interactions between all these groups that would cause problems. Groups would disagree, and may even come to violence (I mean, we see it enough today as is).

I'm really going to shut up now.

Or hit myself in the head with a brick.

Either way I will stop now.

Strawman argument. Violence is bad.

Yes, yes it is. And yet, it's so very hard to avoid.

Violence is taught. If we teach our children (or, more likely, our grandchildren teach their grandchildren) something else, maybe something will change.