Thread: NP, I have some rage to vent
View Single Post
Unread 12-18-2009, 05:13 AM   #105
Professor Smarmiarty
Sent to the cornfield
 
Professor Smarmiarty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: K-space
Posts: 9,758
Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law. Professor Smarmiarty isn't just above the law -- they are the law.
Send a message via MSN to Professor Smarmiarty
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krylo View Post
Speaking of, can we get back to Anarchy? I'd like to hear Oster's thoughts on how to get it to work, and I don't think he ever really expanded much on it (I'll bet Smarty has some good ones, too, as communism should basically lead to anarchy). I've heard lots of anarcho-capitalistic ideas (which I pretty much hate with a fervent passion), and a few anarcho-communistic ideas (which I like but don't see them working on large scales for long, at least not coming at it from current human society), and I'm kind of wondering where his ideas lie.

Anarchy, when thought out past teenage rebellion-esque, "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO, MAAAAAN," is actually a pretty interesting concept and probably the best thing this thread can turn into.

The problem with anarchy is that there's a whole bunch of different types, all labelled "anarchy". The one way which has been most compelling to me and seems to be the norm among the more serious discussions of anarchy and the one that we use in communist circles as communism should in theory eventually lead to anarchism (according to some theorists anyway- I'm a little dicey on this point myself).
The interesting thing is that it's pretty much the exact opposite of what you think of when you think of anarchy- ie riots and looting and things.
The thing about anarchy is that it is best defined as "a lack of coercive force" but rule by violence, by strength is pretty much exactly "coercive force". The way anarchy should work is that everyone is their own individual unit. If you choose you can join together, work together, make systems of law because by combining your units you can achieve more than you could apart and the collective good will increase.
The key is that you have the same amount of power as everyone else in the system and there is nothing compelling you to work with the others- unlike currentely where you have to exist in a country and follow its rules and there are differing degrees of power in the populace.
That's the basic idea anyway. You can have structures and rules and laws in place but they are fluctional and optional. The society works in collective for its own good and every person has an exactly equal amount of power.
You are free to develop your own morality, your own rules, your own beliefs.
Last edited by Professor Smarmiarty; 12-18-2009 at 05:18 AM.
Professor Smarmiarty is offline Add to Professor Smarmiarty's Reputation