At Becca's request...
After today's discussion (which again, I thoroughly enjoyed), Becca asked if we could continue. So...
How about if you, the participants, frame the question from today's extravaganza that you would like to discuss. Enjoy. (And don't forget to catch up with the rest of your lives!)
How about if you, the participants, frame the question from today's extravaganza that you would like to discuss. Enjoy. (And don't forget to catch up with the rest of your lives!)
posted by Meyer at 2:38 PM
23 Comments:
Subject: Panic! at the Gov blog
Goodness, I don't check this place for a little while, and you guys comment like there is no tomorrow.
Alright, I'll break my silence with this post.
Today's discussion was interesting, to say the least. It is quite obvious that people have incredibly different views of anarchy. And therein lies the problem. As stated in class, if people have different views of how to get long without anyone in charge, then who's idea are people to follow? It seems impossible to not have one person, or group of people in charge. The only arguement to what I just said that I can think of is to say that people will naturally just follow "natural laws" once human laws are dissolved. There is an inherant problem in this ideal. Humans do not like to get along. It is human nature. Or natural sin for the Christians/Jews/Muslims. Or natural selection for the Atheists/Evolutionists. Or material worship (Non-enlightened) for Bhuddists. The interesting part of this arguement, is that if you do not agree with me, and argue my points, aren't you just proving my point?
P.S. I don't mean to sound arrogant with that last sentence. Just trying to end with a bang, not a whimper.
I believe that there is no way that humans could ever be without some sort of government, ever. One thing that Julie said, that anarchists believe that without government the good side of humans would rule, but like Julie said, chances are that the bad, not the good, would rule. I don't think that it is necessarily it is because humans are evil, but they are extremely competitive. I believe that it is this competition that will drive people to become better than others, and the "best" would eventually take command once again. I also agree with what Tyler said, that government would collapse and resurface, and stay in this pattern. I think that if we could get rid of government people would eventually want or (more likely) force it back into society. Then once again they would get tired of it and overthrow it again. But my point is, humans could not deal with the absence of government, ever, even if they do, for some reason, get rid of it they would soon bring it back. I think that the competitiveness of human nature prevents the dream of equality of all humans, and thus prevents the idea of anarchy.
Also, I just want to say, I don't see people overthrowing government, or even slowly destroying it. Rather, I think that government is going to become so large and powerful, that it will literally control our lives. Science-Fictiony, I know, but I see it happening.
For my own benefit I did a search on anarchy over the ever reliable Google to see the definitions that other sources give it.
I found that anarchy does not literally mean chaos, like I learned sophmore year. It simply means without a ruler.
To me, this distinction makes it even less likely that an anarchial society could ever exist among humans. Because all humans have different brains that process information differently, there will naturally be a leader and a follower. Some people think of bright ideas and step in to help and lead others who are not as naturally inclined. Thus, a ruler is born.
Something I mulled over in class today was the concept that, back in the day, people had a choice. Somewhere in the history of man a concious decision was made to establish government. In class today people said that there could never be an anarchy today, that is obvious. However I don't think there could ever have been anarchy. People long ago saw it necessary for some reason, be it for punishment, structure, or coordination, to form some type of government because of a need or demand for it.
It's almost like the setup of school is a miniture model of govt. If there wasn't a teacher in the front of the room directing the class, nothing would progress or be learned. And even when we have our fish bowls, the teacher provides resources, topics, and guidlines for the class to work off of. Occasionally when there is no teacher in the class, a student will rise up and fill in the leadership void.
There is no anarchy that can work with the diversity that human nature presents.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I really like what Sarah has said. I never thought of anarchy as just getting rid of ruling government as just getting rid of major authorities. It seems to me that she views things in kind of a tribal view (correst me if I'm wrong here Sarah). I do still see a problem with it though.
Even though there will always be a few bad apples, I think the number is much lower than many people would estimate it to be. Besides, there would still be ways of dealing with these "bad apples" in an anarchistic society, even without police. If somebody committed an immoral act (rape, theft, murder, assault, etc) people could easily decide not to cooperate or barter with that person, thereby effectively making it very hard for that person to survive in the society
If these people are to be "banished" from our harmonious society, then where do we send them? The whole world has to simultaneoulsy accept anarchy at the same time for it to work. And my other question is what happens when these social outcasts band together, and have the ability to wreak havoc on the rest of society who technically cannot punish them?
William Hea
First off there is a flaw in the morality argument.
The reason that people have similar moral values is from sharing religion and education. AN EDUCATION PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT. It is impossible for anyone to say that people wouldn't go around raping and murdering because the murderers and rapers would not have the same moral, government-supplied education that we have. These activities are also practiced in an organized setting, so wouldn't it be reasonable to think that murder and rape would increase without the repurcussions supplied by a government?
Sarah, your commune anarchism is more like the final goal of communism than anarchy. In communism, a country goes through a set of phases becoming gradually more and more communistic, eventually ending in what you describe. Although it is a good idea, the main factor in communes is a unifying ideal, communism, something that would be supplied by the absolute minimalist government.
Sarah, you're right, atheism would be necessary for anarchy, communistic support of atheism seems to recognize this and although the final form of communism and anarchy are not the same, they are similar.
I am not a big fan with strict word definitions, probably becasue I have to deal with them too often in debate. Here is the full set of definitions from dictionary.com verifying that what we are talking about is anarchy.
an‧ar‧chy /ˈænərki/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-er-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I appreciated what Mr. Meyer was saying in fourth hour about the island scenario. If the island had enough resources for everyone then Anarchy would be a viable option. Also going back to his point about the two year olds... (all the two years olds can play and be physically together without sharing or actually engaging with each other.) If every person can supply for himself or herself then there would be no need for "real" government. Wasn't government established to maintain the economy? So, if the economy maintains itself and everyone is provided for Anarchy would be an option.
HOWEVER...
We live in a world that cannot provide for all of its occupants thus Anarchy is illogical in our day unless we wanted to starve and then there would be no need for government anyway (so perhaps anarchy could work... hmmmm)
About the universal "truth" that someone will always establish himself as a leader, A well taken point although we must ask "what kind of leader?" Certainly there can be moral leaders that are not governmental rulers. Think Jesus, Mohammed, Mother of Theresa, almost all religious figures. They influence the way we act and in a way show what society COULD be but don't establish themselves as political leaders. They are only moral leaders. If there were people that were leaders of the morality of the society, that doesn't mean that there would be a government. They would show how good people can be, not how good people MUST be.
William Hea
I respect your arguments that social education leads to morals, but even this education is mostly government regulated. Most of your social interaction occurs at government school. Everyone is taught similar values by the government and the sociaetal structure around the government enforces these values. Without the government there will be many pockets of different moralities because there will no longer be a single uifying moral factor (as long as we are still going with the atheism is necessary for anarchy argument).
Marci, I think the society you are thinking of is a religious Utopian experiment in the United States, it died.
Derick's argument is the best one I've seen yet.
Using Meyer's somewhat oversimplified analogy, even if everyone on the island has enough resources, there is still the question of distribution, how much is enough for each person, who needs more? Humans tend to draw lines and these divisions kill anarchy. That and people are too lazy to all do the same amount of work for the same benefit, thanks Derick.
It's probably more likely that the outcasts would just form their own community instead of attack their old one But if these outcasts form a new society, they clearly won't like the other society, which will create conflict, and thus the need for government, right?
Of course if someone has to kill the outcasts in defense of the town, that brings up the question of whether or not they themselves would be cast out. I think anarchy would require a more subjective view of morals than the standard "life good, murder bad" idea. Whatever happened, people would have to weigh the actions of the individual against the welfare of the community, which could definately be a slippery slope.
By the community weighing actions of others, aren't they instituting Judiciary actions? Isn't that a form of government?
Good Lord, why am I up? I have a zero hour. Guess this just proves my inner nerd.
Marci,
I did not intend to call you a moron or any ad hominem. I am sorry if I offended you, I just meant to challenge your opinion.
The fact that I disagree with you or argue with you doesn't mean I think you are stupid or that your opinion is stupid.
I was merely trying to point out that no attempted Utopian society has lasted very long. (I could be wrong and there may be some backwoods Utopian society somewhere).
Hey Mr. Meyer,
I was wondering if there would be any way for people who missed a class, like me with this one, to figure out what is going on, and maybe create a different perspective on it.
Thanks
I have a hypothetical to add.
Sarah mentioned earlier that just because there were no laws doesn't mean she would go out and kill/rape/steal tomorrow. Well, no, I wouldn't do those things either. But to be completely honest, if there were no law against it, I might feel alot better about say speeding or running a red light. If there were not consequences set in place from a powerful group,yah, I would probably speed alot. haha.
as annoying as speed limits are, they serve a purpose. They force the driver to be paying attention while driving and when the limits are implemented, the driver has much more control over the car. So with no speeding tickets and hikes in insurance payments, what will stop everybody from driving to suit there timeline and engine ability? If a car can go 200 miles an hour down University, why not do it? Who needs stoplights? So then, when a massive car crash happens, what then? No blame can be assigned because there are no natural human laws against speeding and after all it was just an accident. Accountibility is also a government function and unless there are just no cars in anarchy, I don't know how to solve the problem. and no cars would just be too hard.
and please, I don't go 200 mph. Just a hypothetical for smaller laws.
also, I was wondering how bartering would work. who would set what the items were equal for? If one farmer grew wheat, a staple American food, and one person sold, whoops, no gave out concessions at a pool, how would they trade so that the wheat farmers efforts were repaid but also so the poor concessioner could still live just as equally?
and if simple jobs like a concessioner didn't exist, how would workers relate to the unemployed?
There has to be a standard and a way to work equally, but how without government and price values?
Meghan, about your last comment-- I would probably speed a lot too. At least until something bad happened. With little kids they have a hard time figuring things out by just hearing it. Don't run too fast or you'll fall, don't touch that or you'll get burned... Likewise, with adults, I think that yes we would all be speeding, but then we would get in accidents that, hopefully, aren't too bad and figure that well, if I hadn't been speeding then that wouldn't have happened, so next time, you won't run that light or speed too fast. Or else you would have already learned that lesson and figure that when a someone is telling you to do something or else something bad will happen you should probably do it. And think, I speed too but not like going 90 down county line (Although I do know someone who did). If I don't know the speed limit somewhere, I usually figure aroung 40 or 45 depending on where I am. Given, the only reason I worry about is that I don't want to get pulled over but it's still just kind of instinctive. Likewise, I tend to go slower where I don't know the speed than where I do.
Just a question for anyone and everyone...
If there wasn't a government and anarchy was the norm, where would we get the social projects? Would we be giving our own money to build roads and such. What about all the bureaucracy we were talking about on Fri.? How would we get our mail, or pay our teachers, or build roads?
The government IS doing something now that citizens can't do themselves, the government is forcing citizens to work together. Why should I work harder than someone else if we benefit equally? The government also provides a way to decide where the roads go, where they pass through, who gets what and how much, etc. People cannot solve these things among themselves there has to be a forum to argue these ideas, government. Look at this blog, although many people would call this anarchy we are still being governed by the rules of the school and Meyer, they may not actively participate, but we all know that there will be repercussions if we step out of line. That is why government is necessary there must be a way to facilitate decisions.
Okay... So this blog kind of died out. I think we all got everything said that we wanted cause A lot of it is just the same stuff-- Anarchy is theoretically a logical idea but there are flaws, like with any government, and there's no chance that it would be successful in our lifetimes.
NEW TOPIC, PLEASE!! We don't want to go back to real life!
So, If anyone is interested, I have a new topic: Power.
I was talking with my dad and he was just stating the hypothetical question "Why do people allow others to have power over them?" With the religious leaders and cult mentality (not that all religions are cults, by any means) But why do people follow so wholeheartedly? What about the slave trade? Why did the Europeans think they had power over the Africans and why did the Africans not do more to rebel? I know that the Aficans didn't have weapons, but there must have been something... Was it only fear?
So, if anyone is still reading this... Any thoughts?
That's fine, Megan, I didn't think that there was much more to say, but you make some good points! I was just thinking that Since Meyer hasn't posted any more questions, I might as well post my own :) But if you all don't want to move on yet, that's fine!!
One question I have had about power goes along with Mr. Meyer's 4 definitions of power, the A and B people.
So A gets B to do these things, gradually growing a stronger hold over B, but HOW does A get B to do these things? HOW does A rise over B in the first place?
I'm not so sure that power is what A does, but how. If we can answer the how, that is where we will find the method in power, where it begins and how it grows in the four steps.
I agree, Meghan. I don't understand how. It can't all be fear. or blackmail. That's what a dictator does. But like Mr. Meyer was saying, He doesn't actually make others believe his preferences. That's more of a cult mentality and that would be so scary if a government did indeed have that much power. It seems like that definition of power involves more brainwashing than anything and how would one accomplish brainwashing.
Okay, I know I'm a AP Kid, But it's like zoolander. Taking that movie for some shred of reality, Why doesn't Derek realize that it is just a silly video. I guess he does at one point, but he gets shocked. But seriously, even though he's stupid, He has to have some kind of inkling that it's not right. And Even though it is just a completely outrageous movie, which I never thought I would be blogging about on an AP blog, Why does it work (forgetting the fact that it's a ben Stiller/Owen Wilson/Will Ferrill Movie.
First, I am not exactly sure how you are talking about anarchy. If it is merely the lack of an official governing body, then yes, our world is one of anarchy. However, Anarchy can also be considered a lack of any established ethical code in which case, our world is not one of anarchy. Consider the US (the sole super power I assume you are talking about). In the case of Iraq, Bush was indeed able to enter Iraq despite the UN not wanting him to. He entered anyhow because of our position. However, Now that he has entered and begun to spread democracy, Bush would be condemned if he chose to left. Also, He is taking a lot of criticism for not stopping poverty and AIDS in Africa. I think he should be doing more as well. The rest of the world expects him and his administration to solve the world's problems because he governs the superpower. I don't know if this makes a whole lot of sense. But by being a super power, The US is being held responsible for things it would not necessarily bother with. Although there is no established government for the government, there are still values the US is expected to uphold which defines much of its policy.
I understand that much of what occurs in our world is completely unethical. The point I was trying to make is that when it comes to nations being in a state of anarchy, there is still a system of checks and balances where other nations will hold each other responsible for their actions whether the intial actions were moral or immoral.
Wow. These comments took quite a while to read. (Thanks to becca for the short novel...)
As Sarah and Becca have outlined several instances and their dealing within our hypothetical anarchical society, I'd just like to provide some support that lies within historical trends. As I'm sure you would agree, our Consitution is, so far, the most liberating outline of government. As such, we can conclude that America follows a liberal tradition of government (liberal as defined by the political spectrum of the French Revolution, ie: changing from the past, away from monarchy and reactionism.) Thus, since the abandonment of Feudalism, the evolution of government has been a search for freedom and swings further and further left with sporadic opposition (fascism, Soviet communism, etc.) Therefore, if the evolution of government continues with its historical trend, it will eventually reach a point of ultimate freedom, individual and societal. So we must ask, will humanity continue to push its governmental horizons or will we all kill each other first?
Post a Comment
<< Home