[Lokutus]

...than anarchism.

Go on, I dare ya.

Seriously, since we spend a great deal of time here discussing the possibility of collapse and what life might be like afterwards, take a moment to consider your gut reaction to the word itself.

Anarchy.

Anarchism.

Anarchist.

Is it a negative reaction? Revulsion maybe? Fear? Do your bowels start gurgling with anxiety?

Here's my thesis. We have all been programmed by the system to fear this word even more than we fear the c-word (i.e., communism) because it's what the state fears most: becoming irrelevant. With communism at least it has a reason for justifying its own existence. We are here to protect you against the communist state.

But anarchism eliminates the need for a state. It shows us that when confronted with a situation in which there is no state, people actually can rise to the occassion and take a collective approach to governance of their community.

For most of my life, I have scoffed at the mere mention of anarachism as a viable option for some communities if there is a collapse.

Now I'm no longer so sure. The more I read about it and think about it, the more I think that it would not be a bad way to live. No hierarchy means no professional military which means no more imperialism.

People would only fight if their community was attacked.

Just some food for thought on why anarchy is the most reviled of the political options. Maybe it's because the PTB know that it's our natural state. The one we lived in for 2.5 million years before the hierachical dominator model took hold about 10,000 years ago.

There are some good links here.

Hakim Bey and the Temporary Autonomous Zone

This is a brief review of a book by a man who lives in and visits anarchist enclves around the globe.

Clandestines: The Pirate Journals of an Irish Exile

[Lokutus]

Just to be real clear about what motivated this post.

First, I'm not an anarchist.

But I find it intriguing that even right-wingers will take a minute or two to pontificate on why communism and socialism are bad, but never on anarchism.

Anarchism is always instantly dismissed as soon as it's brought up.
Usually with no more than a sneer and a wave of the hand.

Now why is it the ultimate political taboo?

[EnergyUnlimited]

I do not see it as a taboo, but I do see anarchism as idea with no reasonable prospect to work anywhere.

Lets say that government was "decapitated" somehow and chaos resulted.

Shortly after some peoples would convince others to work together and warlords run system would result.

Warlords would form alliances between themself to fight yet another competing warlords etc.

Eventually successful clans would form proper government and subdue (or kill) others.
Very soon you would have something like you observe now, but meantime there would be a civil war.

The only situation (which I can imagine now) for anarchism to work would be when entire human population fallen to few millions or less and those would be left spreaded along the globe.
In this circumstances it would not be possible to form structured governments and peoples would live like baboons do now (in groups of few dosens of individuals or so).

[smallpoxgirl]

That's easy.

Janet Reno!!



Be careful too before you get too wrapped up in Hakim Bey. I like the TAZ book too, but do remember he's an outspoken advocate of the Man-Boy Love Association. IMHO state or no state, there certain types of behaviour that just shouldn't be acceptable.

I think anarchism is scary because you live in a society controlled by a state. The worst most highly punished "crime" in a state controlled society is trying to attack the state. It's sort of a hand-me-down of attacking the king.

It's also related to the reasons why people who have spent 30 years in jail freak out when they are released. Your institutionalized. You've gotten so use to being told what to do all the time that you've forgotten that you could figure it out just as well for yourself.

[Atlantean_Relic]

Personally, The Borg are scarier.

[Lokutus]

The Zapatistas are proving that it can work. Zapatista villages are basically anarchist communities or TAZs. There's a similar, even bigger, movement in Brazil with peasants taking back the land.


PS It's too bad about Bey's personal life. But I have learned to seperate the idea out from the person.

[MacG]

Anarchism is the perfect system. The way it was meant to be. My heart is 100% devoted. It's just one or two small problems:

1) People with limitless greed.

2) People with limitless stupidity.

The category 1) will feed and organize cat 2) and use them to supress any individualists around.

Have a bunch of Cat 2 around me. They will follow anyone who promise to feed and organize them and their families.

[Lokutus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') do not see it as a taboo, but I do see anarchism as idea with no reasonable prospect to work anywhere.

Lets say that government was "decapitated" somehow and chaos resulted.

Shortly after some peoples would convince others to work together and warlords run system would result.

Warlords would form alliances between themself to fight yet another competing warlords etc.

Eventually successful clans would form proper government and subdue (or kill) others.
Very soon you would have something like you observe now, but meantime there would be a civil war.

The only situation (which I can imagine now) for anarchism to work would be when entire human population fallen to few millions or less and those would be left spreaded along the globe.
In this circumstances it would not be possible to form structured governments and peoples would live like baboons do now (in groups of few dosens of individuals or so).

[Lokutus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'A')narchism is the perfect system. The way it was meant to be. My heart is 100% devoted. It's just one or two small problems:

1) People with limitless greed.

2) People with limitless stupidity.

The category 1) will feed and organize cat 2) and use them to supress any individualists around.

Have a bunch of Cat 2 around me. They will follow anyone who promise to feed and organize them and their families.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')narchy sounds good to me
Then someone asks, "Who'd fix the sewers?"

Every theory has its holes
When real life steps in

[Liamj]

Its true what others have said about us being institutionalised, and it may be that us/our generations would be crap at anarchy. But we're crap at 'democracy' too (too lazy/selfinterested/ignorant/partisan). And its not like anarchy is actually unfamiliar, its just that only our rulers are really free to operate under it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')DO WE EVER REALLY GET OUT OF ANARCHY?"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
...Most people, regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence.'
The purpose of this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy, and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy. ...

[Kylon]

That's why I'm a libertarian.

It's anarchy, with none or few of the downsides.

The only taxes that exist are those to support the police and the military, and a very, very small beaurcracy to keep the government going.

With Libertarianism, you basically would have almost no taxes, could do just about whatever you wanted(so long as it wasn't hurting others) and test out different lifestyles.

The problem is that there are too many interest groups who have a stake in government.

1) Parasite Corporations- Not to be confused with productive, helpful, good corporations, parasite corporations would be like Haliburton and the like.

2) Minorities and Women- Although I don't agree with white supremicist, or minute men on their ideology, I do dislike the way minorities and feminist organizations work. They essentially use the government to enforce their will, and use government money(other peoples money) to pay for their lifestyle. With the women, they make it impossible to say certain things, they make it where you have to have quotas, regardless of how that infringes on other peoples success or rights, they make it where looking at them in a certain what is "sexual harassment". They make it where marriage means a women can marry you, then divorce you, and take half your stuff, and infringe on a whole slew of other civil liberties. They also opt for special privileges, but I don't want to go into that. And they use government resources(in the funding of feminist studies, and other government funded feminist organizations/structures) to constantly demonize/politically weaken the stance of men. If they want to demonize men, that's okay, that's in their right of free speech. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT(even if it's legal) TO USE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY TO SERVE THEIR IDEOLOGY. If people want to support them, then people will donate cash to them, otherwise they have no right to that money. Minorities make themselves get special privileges, special quotas in colleges, ect... in order to solve the "social inequality", and have other special benefits given to them by the government, and heavily opt for social programs. Minorities make it illegal to discriminate(which I believe we have a right to do) and to segregate. The basis for any propserous advanced community is segregation, exlcuding social nexus' such as trading points.

Segregation is needed in order to basically keep out anyone who might cause problems, would drain the system, or otherwise cause discomfort to the people there. Now, I'm not in favor of racial segregation, but more in favor of segregation based off of religion/ideology. When you have multiple ideologies, it causes decoherence(regardless of any benefits you may name), and ultimately disentigration of that community. If you have one person who believes that their God thinks they should kill all Infidels, and another who believes that God wants them to take care of one another, and another who believes that God wants them to keep all non-believers, then you'll have conflict. It's easier/more efficient/cheaper, just to ban those people from your community, and tell them to go elsewhere, and/or form another community on their own. It saves alot of pain, resources, and money to do this.

3) Vested interest of those in power- This is obvious in itself, the ones who have vested interest maintaining the system, because they are parasites will do anything(at the expense of others, for the "greater good" of course), so they will always fight to maintain the system, and eliminate by whatever means necessary those who oppose it.

4) Sheeple- The fact of the matter is, that even though this country is headed towards dictatorship, that's what the people want. This is a democracy after all. I think the fact that the people want secretly a dictator(maybe not consciously) is more terrifying than the prospect of having a dictator. When the people are dumb enough, lack the individuality, and have the willingness to elect anyone who would give them bread and circuses, then not only will there be a dictator, but that dictator will have full control over the people. They won't hesitate to crush anyone who gets in their way, and they will use the people to support them. True there may be a few people who oppose the dictator, but they will be few and far between, and the dictator will make sure they can't get organized.

There are a few other things I don't want to get into, such as

Limited resources-
Need for a strong centralized government due to strong external pressures-
Sociological tendency for civilizations to go towards oligarchy, regardless of original government type-

Ultimately these factors will inhibit the development of any real Libertarian civilization, other than where there is alot of living space.

That's why I'm going to get my degree, and form Oceanic Colonies, where I can be free.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', ' ')
That's why I'm going to get my degree, and form Oceanic Colonies, where I can be free.

[threadbear]

Anarchism--no central authority? Decentralization will be a great accomplishment and should rise up out of the ashes of globalization, but it will be a rough ride getting there. It's more of a challenge than threatening to me.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'T')hat's why I'm a libertarian.

It's anarchy, with none or few of the downsides. ...

[Kylon]

I do believe in global warming, and in peak oil, and in other environmental problems.

However, there really isn't anywhere on the planet that's not owned/occupied by somebody else. Even Ethiopia is occupied, even though the land can't support the people.

So I see the Ocean as the next great frontier. Due to all of those climate problems, and such, it will force only people with either resources, or engineering expertise to actually go and build them.

I have taken oceanic storms into account in my plans, and I have also taken into account Tsunamis, which dwarf ocean storms in comparison to possible damage.

The solution to that is A) structural integrity fields(I'm not telling you how they work, because I'm going to make money off of them), and B) shields.

Structural integrity fields are my little secret(which would be required to withstand the storms and what not), and then there is the matter of shields.

Modern forcefields that they are working on in the hot nuclear fusion reactors aren't that useful for anything other than plasma, and have huge power requirements.

A much better type of shield uses a principle known as the multi-pactor effect, pioneered by Philio T. Farnsworth. He was working on fusion, but due to corporate interest had his idea trashed(he had a contract to work with a university on the project, and right after they got it signed they told him to hit the road, and that the project would never be developed).

Anyway, his forcefield used ultra high frequency alternating magnetic fields, which in turn caused the any electrons around to become in a sense "paralyzed".

Now with those of you not familiar with AC current, and DC current, AC current alternates between polarities, which is why it's called alternating current. DC current, has one polarity, which is why it's called DC, or direct current.

Now since AC current changes polarities every second depending on it's frequency, it's capacity to move electricity is inversely related to it's frequency. The higher the frequency the more times the current alternates, making it where it moves less.

When this field is applied to electricity, it causes the electricity to move less depending on how high the frequency is. So the higher the frequency, the more stationery the electricity is.

Thus, the creation of modern shields.

Modern shields basically are the projection of electrons slightly outside of whatever your defending(could be done quite easily with a cathode ray tube), then applying a multipactor field to it, a super high frequency AC magnetic field, thus causing all the electrons to stay in place.

Now, if any of you know anything about molecules and atoms, you'll know that they are mainly empty. What keeps us from going inside the molecules and atoms are the electrons pushing off of our electrons as our molecules push on the outer electron shell of whatever molecule we have come in proximity to.

So, one creates a field of electricity, the electricity becomes paralyzed, can't move, then when something trys to push on it, then it loses a little bit of it's staying power, but it's staying power is dependent on it's frequency, so if you increase it's frequency then you can increase it's capacity to handle force.

Anyway, I have a few ideas on how to make forcefields stronger than what I have just described, but these shields have been around since the 70's and have effectively contained hot fusion, done in repeated and repeatable experiments.

I was thinking of combining this with the ADS nuclear fission technology, which would allow me to produce power from any heavy material.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic21334.html

[worrier]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople would only fight if their community was attacked.

[Kylon]

BTW, I wasn't the one who said that,

That's why I am vouching for the construction of Oceanic Colony.

The same technology which could be used to protect an oceanic colony from Hurricanes, ocean storms, and tsunamis could be used to defend against nuclear attacks, naval bombardments, torpedos, and the technology could be used to project plasma at enemy ships.

Cue however, that would be another story. If someone on the ocean city decided to attack, then there would be major problems, as one would have to fight inside damage the very infrastructure keeping everyone alive.

Ocean colonies are simply the next step to move towards space colonies. They are the intermediate between space colonies and land colonies.

[Specop_007]

Herpes. I'm way more scared of herpes then I am anarchists.
I can kill an anarchist. I can kill herpes, but the damn things keep coming back.
HPV is nothing to scoff at either, I dont want cauliflower growing on Big Jim and the Twins.

[Lokutus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('worrier', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople would only fight if their community was attacked.