Anarchy

[paul barrett]

 >> no one could think that without being completely ignorant as to what
 >> anarchy actually is.
 >
 > Which is why I asked.  I really don't know.

sorry if I sounded harsh.

 >> anarchy is not terrorism.
 >>
 >> anarchy is not chaos.
 >
 > Wouldn't this depend on point of view?  As Bekah mentioned - "the eye 
of the targeted"?  Or would it depend on something as simple (but 
contained) as the blast range and those to be found within it?  (For 
those anarchists who do throw bombs . . .)

that's a little difficult.  I feel the answer should be no, but I can 
understand how difficult it can be to separate the definition of anarchy 
from the illusion of it that many people believe, and possibly from the 
practice of it as observed.

so, in practice, many anarchists, misguided i.m.o.,  may be doing things 
which can be defined as promoting chaos or being terrorist acts.

it is a problem when you try to separate theory and practice.  If enough 
people practice a theory in a particular way, does this override the 
original definition, or are they misappropriating a term to justify 
their own actions?  or do they even belief this adjustment of the 
definition is part of the definition?  or is it even subtly encoded 
within the definition (the bit about "morality follows functionality")?

 >> Anarchists are those who believe that all people are imbued with a sort
 >> of commonality, common sense, that would allow for people to, in the
 >> absence of the government, come together in agreement to form a
 >> functional existence. Morality falls in line with functionality, and its
 >> forms differ. Anarchy does not reject ethics, or principles, but rather
 >> imposed morality."
 >
 > A great and useful definition.  Thanks.  But another question 
(sorry): if morality falls in line with functionality, then every action 
against a government, or "the bosses," is acceptable?  Even murder?

slightly scary and very relevant question.  something I hadn't thought 
about.  I'm (reasonably) new to the idea of anarchy (I have been 
thinking about it a lot prior to AtD, possibly since the days when I 
read and re-read V For Vendetta, which is the first story I read that 
seemed to advocate anarchy as a viable system instead of portraying it 
as an inevitable precursor to chaos and violence,)  but I haven't 
thought about it seriously until recently.

Of course, V used violence.

Was it acceptable?  Maybe not.  Was it necessary?  There it gets tricky. 
  Maybe it was.  Maybe the only way to remove an oppressor *is* to take 
them out violently.  They sure aren't going to listen to you if you try 
to talk.

It's difficult and I am not sure I agree with tactics as used by people 
such as Webb or V, although both of them did (largely) seem to be going 
out of their way to only harm those who were actively against them. 
There is of course the thing about "there is no such thing as an 
innocent (fill in the blank)"

I do know one thing to which I am very opposed - attacking those who are 
*not* your opressors.  Terrorism is when you attack people based on them 
being in or from the same country as your oppressors.

It's stupid as well, because even if you were agreeing with "morality 
follows functionality" what exactly is functional about killing people 
who most likely have little or nothing to do with your situation and 
what you are aiming to achieve?  It's dysfunctional, is what it is.

The way I interpret the idea of "morality follows functionality" is 
exactly that.  To me, moral things would be those that enhance the 
functioning of society.  Immoral ones would be those which detract from 
that functioning.

And there would be a whole huge host of things which would be neither 
moral nor immoral, and frankly no one's business but the participants. 
Many of these are currently regulated by law (I think it is still 
illegal in some US states to have oral sex?  In the UK, it is illegal to 
have outdoor trance parties.  I am sure many countries have equally 
silly laws.)

 >> I'm a believer in the principle of anarchy, I simply think that people
 >> will mess it up, because I do not think greed and mistreatment of other
 >> people is the exclusive domain of government and big business.
 >> Individuals are quite capable of being petty and selfish all on 
their own.
 >
 > Agreed, this makes perfect sense given what I know about my own human 
nature.
 >
 > Still (I know I am sounding pretty dumb here, or missing something 
quite obvious to others), what is it that anarchists DO?

I was taught (unfortunately only once I hit the working world, and not 
at school where they *should* teach this) that asking stupid questions 
is a great way to learn things, and that being afraid to sound stupid 
can keep you from learning.

I'm not really sure what anarchists do.  It's been a sticky point with 
me because if they do not in some way act to remove government from the 
world, then all they are is philosophers.  Nothing wrong with 
philosophers, I even thought of becoming one, but philosophers theorise. 
  They do not act on their theories (other than to try to convince 
others of those theories.)

I really do believe that small communities could live in an anarchic 
system.  I know people who will live happily with one another, not steal 
from or cheat one another, and treat one another with respect.

Maybe if enough small communities like that could exist, and a 
collection of communities could act like individuals in a larger 
community, anarchy as a state of the world could be achievable.  It's a 
very idealistic thought, because inevitably, at some level, the 
communities are likely to be infiltrated by people who want to rule them 
or take advantage of them.

Nothing wrong with ideals, though.

For my part, I try to convince people that almost no one really obeys 
the law.  Most people do illegal things, they just do what they *think 
they can get away with* and sometimes *things where they strongly 
believe the law is wrong*

I try to explain to people that laws as such *should* not be necessary. 
  That each person can and should govern themselves.

and that you should treat others the way you would hope to be treated, 
and act either to improve your community, or do not act to damage it. 
anything and everything else that you do is up to you.