|
Post by Galadon on Feb 23, 2004 13:09:54 GMT -5
The main problem is human are a social creature. and in any group there is a picking order. This builds in to a government over time.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 23, 2004 15:04:52 GMT -5
in any group there is a picking order. Going off a side track for a moment... actually it's in any male group there is a pecking order. Female organizations (i.e. those dominated or organized by women) tend to be set up like a wheel rather than a tower (with the "leader" in the middle, not on top, and not so much a "leader" as a "coordinator" ). Anyway, back to the anarchism discussion.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 23, 2004 15:31:45 GMT -5
Here's how I think of a tribe: A group united by a common purpose taking turns being in charge based on whose knowledge is most relevant to the situation at hand.
I'm sure there are other sorts of tribes that more closely fit Merkuri's definition. In fact her definition may be the most common kind and thus the common definition.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Feb 23, 2004 15:36:04 GMT -5
In a basic despotism, which is what tribes are, there is but one leader. After all, why would someone give up power when they already have it? The only way what you described would work is if people agreed that they would mutually share the power instead of letting one person preside over them. This is called communism.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 23, 2004 16:01:36 GMT -5
Here's how I think of a tribe: A group united by a common purpose taking turns being in charge based on whose knowledge is most relevant to the situation at hand. What you've described is another form of government. Whenever somebody's "in charge," you have a government. And your idea isn't unique, either. In the city-state of Athens (I think... somebody correct me if I'm getting my Greek city-states mixed up), every citizen (i.e. adult male) took a turn at being the leader. It sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize it now, changing your perspective to combat our arguments. You've stopped trying to advocate the idea of a true anarchy and have started advocating other, smaller forms of government (tribalism), which are still governments, not anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Feb 23, 2004 17:18:19 GMT -5
You got to be kidding. Women have a structure just like men. Just because it is more hidden doesn't mean it not there. I have watched women over the years. Women are as competative as men, just in a different fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Feb 24, 2004 7:42:09 GMT -5
And as far as female power sharing tending to be circular, well, you obviously haven't been party to matriarchy. Women have been every bit as ruthless as men in the past. It's just that women tend to be relagated to domestic power struggles throughout most of western (and eastern really) history. But, to try to make it sound like women are better at sharing power than men, is not true.
From Cleopatra, to Elizabeth and various groups in between, I would strongly disagree that women are any different in power sharing than men.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 24, 2004 8:33:53 GMT -5
I actually got that bit of information from my sister... next time I talk with her I'll ask her for the data she's basing her arguments on. She wrote a whole paper on the subject, as I recal.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 24, 2004 19:28:39 GMT -5
Okay I may be rationalizing and I may be envisioning something closer to True Communism (as opposed to Communist Dictatorship).
I envision anarchy as not the actual absence of government, but rather government reduced down to the Individual State. That is every person is his own king or her own queen. Of course, such individual states can and most likely will enter into non-agression pacts, treaties of friendship, trade agreements, and other deals that nation states already make with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 24, 2004 20:55:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 24, 2004 21:09:33 GMT -5
I've heard anarchism called libertatian socialism elsewhere. Something like if you take the dictionary definnitions of libertarianism and socialism and stick them together, you get what a lot of anarchists believe in. I've got no problem with the term and would use it myself, but anarchism has more shock value and is more easily understood. I mean do you really think you could drag this many people into a discussion called my libertarian socialism thread?
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Feb 24, 2004 21:17:54 GMT -5
True... but that's just because people haven't been conditioned to hearing that term. Would you be more drawn to anti-"National Socialism" or anti-Nazism?
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Feb 24, 2004 21:48:19 GMT -5
See, but when I hear "anarchy", I think of mass chaos and disorder and eventually lots of deaths. "Libertarian socialism", though I needed to look it up, I can actually sorta understand.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 25, 2004 15:40:34 GMT -5
See, but when I hear "anarchy", I think of mass chaos and disorder and eventually lots of deaths. "Libertarian socialism", though I needed to look it up, I can actually sorta understand. But it doesn't mean any of those things. Like many English words it has its roots in the Greek language. The prefix an means without or lacking and archos means king or ruler, so anarchy is the state of being without a king or other ruler. I don't think anarchy has to be brought about by violent revolution, and, in fact, I'd prefer if it weren't. It doesn't have to be a sudden overnight thing. I think it can be achieved gradually and through legitimate means. That probably makes my version of anarchism rather similar to libertarianism, but I think Libertarians (as in the political party) want to take power from the government and give it to the rich, while anarchists really want the idea of power and authority to die.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 25, 2004 16:06:38 GMT -5
To the end of gradually bringing about anarchy through legitimate, non-violent means, I propose the formation of the Gradual anarchy Party. Our goal is simple: anarchy by the year 2160. I think we should start with legalizing pot and prostitution. We can pick our next goal after that.
Any takers?
|
|