View Single Post
Old May 5th, 2007, 04:24 PM   #51 (permalink)
zabu of nΩd
Blessed Are The Sick
zabu of nΩd's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,742
Originally Posted by Crucified Spartacus View Post
If the fact that there are so many people prevents anarchy, that to me is another good reason to lower the population. However, most anarchists throughout history are not anti-civ, therefore, they think anarchy is manageable with millions or billions or people. it certainly seems like people don't want to do the things politicians and business people do, and i wouldn't even argue they should be doing them because i don't think civilization should exist. I think people are manipulated their entire lives into giving up direct autonomy in favor of leaders in many spheres of life. To separate out what people supposedly want and what they have simply been brainwashed into believing ever since saying the pledge of allegiance in 1st grade is a little difficult. Various examples throughout history, such as the Spanish Civil War, The ukranian rebellion led by Nestor Makhno against the bolsheviks, etc. demonstrate that people are often willing to take matters into their own hands, thus proving anarchy could work.
Since we're debating anarchy for its own sake, I'll leave out primitivism concerns here. You made some vague attack on government based on suspicion of brainwashing, which seems pretty empty to me considering that there are so many people in developed countries who oppose their government (doesn't sound like very effective brainwashing to me). As far as your demonstration of how anarchy 'could work', I suggest you modify that statement to say that 'conditions for anarchy could be made to exist'. Examples of rebellion certainly don't show that anarchy could work, since these rebellions always give way to some new form of government (i.e. not anarchy). As far as I'm aware, anarchy is not working anywhere in the developed world, and never has.

Originally Posted by Crucified Spartacus View Post
I didn't say people couldn't still talk face to face, it just seems to drastically decrease with the more technology we have. My main point was the decrease in face to face decision making that occurs in foraging societies as oppossed to representation which is anti-face to face.
As long as I have a choice between face-to-face interaction and representative interaction, I really don't care that there's less of it with more technology. It's not evident that technology is on a path to completely destroy face-to-face interaction. If there's some reason why non-representative interaction is so important that it be the only form of interaction, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I suggest you abandon this claim, since you're using an internet forum after all.

Originally Posted by Crucified Spartacus View Post
Even if people are "born to be leaders," which i find a highly questionable/mystical proposition, surviving pre-historical socieities demonstrate quite clearly that those who seek power can often be kept in check and out of instituionalized positions of dominance/influence. If the Kung San and Mbuti could do it, so could we if the will was there.
Slight misinterpretation of what I meant by "born to be leaders". I'm not saying there must or should be leaders, I'm just saying that there exists among humans a type of personality which drives people of that personality to seek power. Obviously these people have more to gain in a civilized society, but that does not make civilization one giant machine bent on controlling the world. But that, once again, is a global concern. Right now I'm just trying to show that politicians aren't making civilized life miserable enough to warrant living in the woods - which I think I've shown pretty well in my above paragraphs.
zabu of nΩd is offline   Reply With Quote