This is here for those who wish to define what anarchy and anarchism are.

This is bound to be a poor and at best introductory meaning into what Anarchism truly means, but I shall try to make it a good place to start. As this thread develops (if indeed it does at all), I'm sure I'll find myself constantly revising myself and further explaining points that I take completely for granted.

And that's okay. But if there is one thing that Anarchism represents, it is change and revision to the end of better understanding and more harmonious function.

Personally, I define Anarchy one of two ways. Understand, though, that these are deeply important but not the least bit specific definitions. "Idealistic Anarchism" and "Practical Anarchism", as I shall call them from atop my head, are no clearer distinctions of 'Anarchy' than "man" and "woman" are distinctions of 'human'. But it is place to start, and it will do.

Simply put, "Idealistic Anarchism" is just that -- idealistic. This is the anarchism spoken of when we say "in a perfect world...". Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need police because everyone is cool to each other and has no reason or inclination to harm their fellow human being. In a perfect world there's no chance that harm will befall you at the hands of another person who has the intent to harm you. In a perfect world, we won't need courts, or cops, or judges, or jurys, or Presidents, or Senators, or Congress. In a perfect world, people don't need the trappings of modern society -- this notion of a security net of bureacracy that keeps us from chaos -- because in a perfect world, we all get along and treat each other right. We're all rational, reasonable, intelligent human beings who don't want to see anyone hurt (well, who doesn't want to be hurt) and do what they can to solve conflicts with words and help everyone on this planet in any way they can to achieve their dreams. In a perfect world, we aren't bigoted or poor or segregated.

But this isn't a perfect world, and that's why I'm throwing the concept of Idealistic Anarchy out the window. It will never happen. Ever ever ever. It isn't even a worthy goal to strive towards, because such a society -- a society without hardship and strife -- would create an entire race centered around docility and compliance. With nothing to struggle against, our lives become meaningless. Who in their right mind wants nothing more than to shit comfortably their whole lives? Those people can have it. But it isn't what I want, so I don't want Idealistic Anarchy.

I'm on the job right now. So I'll get to Practical Anarchism when I have time. I just wanted to get Idealism out of the way. I want to dispell any rumors that anarchists are bomb-throwing maniacs, but I also don't want you to think that the anarchist is a wide-eyed idealist who sits around wishing for a Utopia that will never come to pass. Dreamers and revolutionaries we are, but for those among us deserving of the title 'anarchist', it is tempered with realism.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER (not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker)


There it is in black and white. Thank you Mr Webster.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. =P

Yeah, yeah. I know. Someone had to quote Webster.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Avenger, most folks don't associate the words Anarchy and Utopia together, but it fits, atleast in the ideal sense.

I, for one, look foreward to @venger's dissertation on "Practical Anarchism." He's already made all my arguments against "Idealistic Anarchism."

I strongly doubt that he will cite what I call "Reactionary Anarchism." Reactionaries are those who simply reject all laws, morays, and restrictions because they find such boundries inconvenient. The idea proposed is that restrictions are in place solely to serve those who set up the restrictions. All laws are viewed as bad because they serve only those who passed the laws. The few Anarchists I've met who ascribe to this view are rather high strung, and have considerable family and/or social issues.

"Practical Anarchism" is certainly an intriguing phrase.

Thingmaker, do they reject the laws and morays that effect them or all such things and expect others to do the same? In other words, are the social rebels or sociopaths?

I had someone try to explain to me that all laws were bad because they served those that made the laws and not those most effected by them. My counter argument was based on mutual survival and respect.
We outlaw murder because we don't want to be killed.
We outlaw theft because we don't want to wake up and find all our stuff gone.
We outlaw assualt because we don't like getting our asses kicked.

Yes, certain specific laws give an advantage to some folks over others. Some laws just suck. I tend to hate "Moral" Laws the most. Basically, that's someone saying that their way is right just because they say so.

I hate anti-abortion laws, not because I like killing babies but because unborn children don't contribute to society while their mothers do.
I support the Death Penalty because I don't think society should support those who have done grievious harm to society. I just wish that justice was dealt out with an even hand. Until it is, the issue remains grey for me.

I await Avenger's next installment.

To Jager and everyone else, I just wanted to stop in a moment and let you know I hadn't brushed this off. I've spent a couple of days puzzling over how best to desribe what I refer to as 'Practical Anarchism', and though I came to a conclusion a couple days ago, I've been horrendously busy of late and haven't had a chance to come in and give up the time to do my ideas justice.

Incidentally, Thingmaker, had I thought of it at the time, I would have mentioned what you aptly referred to as 'Reactionary Anarchism'. Though had I, I would have immediately disregarded it (and indeed this would be reason it didn't come to me in the first place) because what Thingmaker describes as 'Reactionary Anarchism' isn't Anarchism at all. At best, it's nothing more than a pathetic mockup of Anarchy, a shadow of what Anarchism is meant to be. A more twisted parody of Practical Anarchy than Mao's Communism was of Marx and Engels. Reactionary Anarchy is the bailiwick of kids playing revolutionary and small-minded ass-ticks who think violent action against whatever institution angers them is productive and positive for the community.

But I'm wandering into verbose-ville again, so I'll cut this off now. I've got a game to run tonight. You'll probably see the synthesis of the ideas running around my head over the last week scrawled down here within a day or two.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Avenger, take care. Running yourself into the ground probably isn't worth it.

Don't pity me, hombre. The only thing worse than running yourself into the ground in a frantic attempt to pursue numerous studies and attend to myriad projects is sitting on your ass watching teevee and not doing a goddamned thing.

Sloth or mania? Give me the life of a caffeine junky any time.

-- Avenger
"You might call me careless but this fast life is all I've ever known."
-- Bad Religion, 'The Fast Life'

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Try raising a newborn. It gives a whole new meaning to "spreading yourself too thin."

Better to burn out than to fade away, eh mate? ^_~

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Jager-Amen to that!

Avenger-You should try it. Munchkins is the ultimate anarchists.



[This message has been edited by James 'Prodigy' Meehan (edited 09-26-2001).]

No worries, James, I'll be having kids someday, I guarantee. But not anytime soon. Too much shit to do. I'm practically still a wee lad myself.

Practical Anarchism

I'd like to relay an unhappy prelude to the following statements. What was written here cost me my job. Yes, that's right. I was fired for what I'm about to copy-n-paste from a file I was working on at work.

I can hear your questions, so here's the answer. I was at work Wednesday night. It was slow, so I decided to compose the missive that follows. About half way through, I saved the file to a .doc and hid it on the hard drive of the company computer. No, this had nothing to do with why I was excused from my position. I also sent the message to myself, or part of it, which is why I still have something here. But apparently, my unequitable and most unjust release from my position had to do, not with the fact that I was using the computer (as I have often on company time, which is legit), not that I used company hard drive space to store a 10k text file (they didn't know, anyway), but rather what I had to say vexed them greatly. I was woken up at 1pm in the afternoon (which to you who live during the day would be around 2am) and ordered to come to the office. And to bring my security badge. So I slogged onto a bus, as I do not own a car, muddled my way into a crowd of people, sleep-fits assaulting my senses, and shambled my way to the office so that I could be properly fired. After an hour-long discourse with the pig-fucking hunk of shit I used to call my boss (since I was being fired, I figured I may as well tell him what I thought of him), I walked out and went home. I'm currently out of work, and today -- yes, today, damn those motherfuckers -- is my birthday, of all days. Fucking scweinehunds.

But I'm not bitter, and I'm not sorry I composed this piece. If I get angry, they win. The job was a meaningless, low-level wage-slave piece of shit, and I'm not all that sad to see it go. I was miserable there. And since I got fired, I can collect unemployment until I find something better. And hell, I was offered a job as a security guard two days ago. Besides. If I can get fired for this, it was only a matter of time, I figure. What bothers me -- what makes me sad, I guess -- was that my dismissal was so unjust. I love justice. I adhere so strongly to what I feel is 'right', and I follow a rigorous code of behavior that I've set for myself that I consider to be difficult beyond that of most Priests. And now, to be fired from a job for speaking my mind. Goddamn motherfuckers.

Anyway, enjoy guys. I hope I can shed some light on this topic. I'll cut this off to let you know where I had to stop, and I imagine that what follows will only be the palest recollection of what I had originally written after that mark, though I shall try.


Begin Original:
Okay everybody, time to sit up on Uncle Avenger's lap. It's story time.

Practical Anarchism

I puzzled for awhile over how best to make my case. Who best to quote. Who's ideas I would do well to use. Obviously, Emma Goldman would be the most popular source, but after not recalling to mind any one bygone anarchist whom I could quote with any measure of concision, I decided instead to synthesize what I've got to say into my own words.

That said, this isn't a speech and it isn't practiced. You're going to be getting this all as it spills forth from the big fucking crack in my skull, so if something seems fragmented or poorly developed, you will know it has to do with my hemmorheging cranium and not my inability to adequately express myself.

Now, Practical Anarchism is a triad of very important, fundamental, necessary ideals, and ones that aren't terribly difficult to attain, either. When I look at Anarchism as I see it, I find it a wonder that it isn't more successful, to be true.

Nonetheless, what follows are the three fundamental tiers of Practical Anarchism. When you find yourself having a gripe with or outraged by one of the first or second ideals, I implore you to read on. This will be written like a strainer; we start with a pure idea, filter out undesireable elements by adding a second, and then add a second filter to finally synthesize the first and second ideals into one cohesive vision.

I begin.

Freedom
Which, if you ask any Anarchist, from your maniac-in-the-street, molotov in hand, to your most sophisticated "I've read every book so I must know it all" Socio-Marxist-Liberal, is the primary thrust of Anarchism. Freedom, pure and simple. Freedom to be who you are, to live your life, to worship your god, fuck your girlfriend and/or boyfriend, pursue happiness, and do it all without fear in whatever manner you like. To not to governed, to not be put down, to not be told what to do, and to not be enforced when you do not.

Imagine for a moment if you could do anything you want. Anything at all, with no interference. Imagine if the only thing holding you back from everything you want to do in life was yourself. Forget for a moment the effect this would have on crime. Assume for a moment that everyones intentions were pure and noble. What a wonderful world, don't you think? A world where people are free to grow and develop and study and explore however they choose and whatever they choose. A world of potential limited only by the individual.

The obvious "you'd be dead" speech then comes up. When people are free to do anything, dictated only by their own sense of morals, we would have chaos, right? No, but I'll get to that.

People are terrified of freedom. The first reason (or the first reason they'll tell you) is because without cops, government or laws, chaos and turmoil would naturally prevail. This is a ridiculous claim for reasons I shall get into, but for now lets look at the other reason people fear freedom so greatly.

True freedom scares the hell out of your average person. It scares your average person because with no government, with no "system" to blame, your average person has no finger to point to. People will invariably still blame their parents, their peers, their school. But with instituted absolute freedom, nobody is under obligation to stay with their parents. Nobody is forced to go to school. Nobody has to have a peer group. I understand full well this is easier said than done. But what I'm digging at here is that most people are reliant on "the system" in all its Draconian glory, and it's not because they depend on it for what it gives them. The depend on the system for what it takes away from them. In limiting and contraining them, they are vindicated in pointing the finger. People blame their woes and their troubles on everyone except themselves, and the system -- whatever it is for each individual, whether the US govt. or the Gnomes of Zurich -- vindicates them. It allows them to say "I could have been something, if not for..." Freedom scares the hell out of people because people who are truly free only have one person to blame if their life is a miserable failure -- themselves. And people are scared shitless of the implications of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Accountability

You cannot ask people to be infallible, but you can at least require they be accountable for what they do. This combats immediately and effectively the most time-honored arguement against Anarchism, and that is that in a lawless society, crime and tyranny would naturally prevail.

Not a chance. Admit it or no, when it comes down to it, a greater number of the population wants peace than war. More people want no murders than murders. More people want no rapes than rapes. Crimes that injure or harm other people will never be tolerated in any society, lawless or not. The larger majority of people will always have a vested interest in seeing to it their local community is kept peaceful, and in an Anarchistic society the people of a given area (whether it's a family, neighborhood, county, state, country, etc.) will band together against a mutual enemy. A murderer, for example, is a mutual enemy. If a man commits a murder on A Street in Townville, the people of Townville and especially those on A Street will band together in the mutual interest of finding the murderer and punishing him. Some will be there out of a genuine sense of altruism. Some will be there because they wish to see justice done. Some will be there because they just want to see someone punished. Most will be there out of self-preservation -- after all, anyone could theoretically be next, right? But all these people will be there, because when you cannot count on the police (who do not exist in the Anarchistic society), who can you turn to? Only yourself, and those who share your mutual interest for the greater good. In this case, it is apprehending and punishing a murderer.

At it's core, Accountability tempers the Anarchistic ideal of Freedom. You do not do anything you are unwilling or unable to be held accountable for, because someone out there -- your parents, your peers, your community, yourself -- is going to find you and hold you accountable for your actions. Obviously, people are not going to stop committing crimes because they know they may be accountable for what they do. But when you know full well that raping someone will call down the entire community -- perhaps the entire state or even country -- on your head, you may well think twice about doing something wrong. So now the question is posed; We have freedom, tempered with Accountability. But what then? What about those who choose to be unaccountable for themselves?

Patience. I'm getting to that.

Obvious. If people are accountable for what they do, crime drops precipitously. Nobody does anything they are unwilling or unable to own up to, and so crimes that can potentially harm people simply don't happen. Other crimes -- "moral" crimes, as Jager described -- are no longer crimes. There simply doesn't need to be legislation on things like drug use, sale, or cornholing your old lady. There will always be drugs, there will always be a demand for drugs, there will always be people trying to self-destruct. Stopping this is a matter of making people feel better about themselves, not arresting drug dealers. As long as there is a demand, there will always be drug dealers. And yes, there will always be people having oral sex, anal sex, kinky sex, gay sex, lesbian sex, etc. Not your bedroom, not your fucking business.

Here's the rule, and it works for everything you can possibly do; did anyone get hurt who didn't want to be hurt? No? Okay. Let it go. Yes? Time to own up to what you did.

How is Accountability enforced? Though this was partially explained above, there is more to this. How, for example, do you catch a rapist who is mobile? Surely the whole world won't feel the need to get involved with apprehending a single rapist, right? Well maybe not... And besides, it's not as if current law-enforcement does a bang-up job of apprehending criminals now. There is nothing a group of police officers can accomplish that a group of like-minded civilians could not.

We also run into the problem of people who don't think that they're doing anything wrong when they, say, murder a child. We have a word for these people; dangerous. Whether they are buttfuck crazy, sick in the head temporarily or just fucked-up evil, there is a simple cure for all three. The cure comes in all sorts of sizes and one applied directly to the cranium or another vital area will usually do the trick.

"Oh my god, are you suggesting we kill the insane and the retarded? They can't help it! They don't know what they're doing!"
Good. Then they won't understand the implications of their own death, either. When someone becomes a danger to other people, I don't care what your mental state is. Insane is not an excuse. Drugged is not an excuse. When you pose a threat to civvies who've done nothing to you, you go down.

Organization

The second-biggest (or perhaps tied for first) most well-known arguement against Anarchy is the classic "So who paves the roads? Who fixes the sewers? Who stops crime?" The answer to all of these questions and the myriad like it are all the same; you or us.

One of the things that people forget so often about Anarchy is that "no government" does not mean "total chaos". It also doesn't mean "no organization". Quite the contrary. A strong Anarchism relies HEAVILY on the organizational efforts of its adherents.

Editorial Note: Everything from here on out I'm writing just now.

Organization is the primary weapon and tool of both the concerned citizen and the Anarchist. Countless times throughout history, when the reigning system was ineffective or corrupt (funny how our government in the US is both), the citizenry has rised up and organized itself into a cohesive force as a means to end it's problem, whether through vigilantism or through overthrow of current government systems. These attempts have me with various degrees of success and failure throughout history and throughout the world, from the French Revolution to Che Guevara to the current Zapatista insurgency in Mexico. The bottom line is, people will organize against their oppressors, whether it be thug, murderer, rapist or politician, and as long as they have the support of the masses, they will prevail.

This ties directly into the other issue, namely the issue of who is in control of public utilities, businesses, currency, etc.

The simply answer is that we all are. Believe me or no, but there will always be people who want to be doctors, who want to be taxi drivers, who want to be actors and accountants and carpenters and clerks and even garbage men. There will always be people who aren't yet skilled enough to have a trade but need to be employed anyway, and so we'll always have video rental clerks and low-level manufacturers.

The difference is that in an Anarchistic society, the power is in the hands of the employees. An old Anarchist slogan goes "The boss needs us. We don't need the boss.", and it's true, really.

Example. At my old job, I used a hydraulic press to stamp a serial number on a copper plate that was used to create mainframes. On an average night, I would stamp around 2000 panels. It was shitty work and I'm glad to be rid of it. But the thing of it is, if I stamp 6000 panels in a night, I get paid the same as if I had stamped 200 in that same evening. I have no incentive whatsoever to work hard, and to be truthful, if not for (and I must confess, sometimes in spite of) my own sense of work ethic, I would have worked only hard enough to not get fired. Because I really don't care how well the company does.

But in an Anarchy, each and every employee has a vested interest in the well-being and prosperity of who he works for, because he and all his fellow employees work for themselves and each other. The corporation has no bosses, only employees who mutually agree on what course of action to take, much like a union. And also much like a union, everything is handled equitably by those who bother to raise their voice.

In Anarchy, as in many things in life, you get out what you put in.

Your cooperation with your fellows and your hard work will be reflected back on you by a bigger share of pay for the proportionate amount of work you did and knowing that your voice was counted in the movements and decisions of "your" company.

Guild houses will take care of most business, which would function much like unions where nobody is "in charge", though certain people (who are voted in and out) have the position of delegating work to those they deem most fit to do a given task. Anarchists still, of course, have college and, so learning a trade would be a matter of not only completing the required classes, but searching out a fellow of your craft to teach you properly.

And yes, we still have money. If we can all agree on a single unit of monetary worth and exchange it, there isn't a problem. Your store doesn't take money? That's fine, but you'll only get business from those who choose to do business with you. Your prices are sky high? Fine, nobody will buy from you and you'll go broke. Obviously, we still have rent and utilities. If you live in someone elses house, you must come up with an arrangement of payment.

All of these are parts of an organized society, but none of them require government influence. Not even law enforcement, because there will always be groups of people who want to do what's right and do not want people to be hurt. I can name three off the top of my head, and that is more than enough to apprehend any criminal working alone.

"Curbstone Justice" is a hallmark of the Anarchistic society, something civilized people tend to balk at. I personally do not. I strongly attest to the merits of vigilantism. This begs the question of "What if the Vigilantes go too far?" There will always be more vigilantes, and there will always be people who believe in fair play and the punishment fitting the crime. In an Anarchist society, the word of the mass is the rule. That may seem like "mob justice" to you, and yes, some people may die wrongful deaths at the hands of overzealous self-appointed "lawmen" who just want to hurt people. But if you think that doesn't happen already, I urge you to have a conversation with Rodney King. Or better yet, Mumia Abu-Jamal, currently awaiting his execution. The difference is that in an Anarcistic society, a vigilantes efforts are closely scrutinized by his peers, and anyone crossing the line will repremanded by the populace who, unlike as with the police, will have a means of recourse.

All Anarchy truly, absolutely needs to function are two very basic things. They are:
1. Altruism of the majority. You may think this a stretch, but all that is needed is for more people to want peace and stability and to be safe than there are people who want chaos, harm and war. When you put it like that, it isn't much of a stretch.
2. The empowerment of the masses. People need to be shown -- not told, shown that they can and do make a difference. They need to know for absolute certain that they can organize and make things happen on their own, instead of allowing other people to make the tough decisions for them.

It will take time and effort, without a doubt. It's going to take a lot of education, and it's going to require some heroes stepping forward to show the deaf and illusioned how to live their lives again. But it can happen.


Anyway, I hope this has been informative to some of you. I'm sure there are matters that I left out, but I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Before you make your criticisms, I would ask that you question me thoroughly on your points of friction.

Now get the hell off my lap, sweetheart. Your money is on the dresser.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

ASTOUNDING!

I would never have equated any of those ideals with the concept of Anarchism. Thank you for the education.

The Populist Party has some ideas that are similar. Also, as a member of a union, I can lend credence to your comparisons in that regard.

Not that I agree with all of it, nor that any agreement was expected.

One thing though, just to keep you honest: There was no detail regarding how a Practical Anarchist society might deal with rapists. You sort of trailed off after citing that current police are less than effective as such.

Just one little niggly point here:



Personally, (and this is from a guy who really has very low faith in humanity as a whole), I really can't see this happening.

You see, my worldview tends to be that for the vast majority of people in this world, the only thing that ensures that they remain law-abiding citizens is the fact that they are terrified of the law (or, more correctly, the stigma of breaking the law). Frankly, I can't see the biggie of this fear, I mean so you go to jail for a year, big deal, buuut, it seems that the majority of humanity feels differently. Most people I believe would be quite inclined to actually just take what they want.

Although, my life has coloured this perspective somewhat. I was, for 9 years, the subject of brutal bullying. It really points out to you the bad side of humanity (children, it seems, have no qualms about using what little power they have if they want to).

It took a move interstate (not just a move to a new school) to actually ditch the bullying. If you ever see Lord of the Flies, it's not that far off really. Take away the supervision of teachers in the playground, and you're about there.

Now, and this is the scary bit to me, what if the world was a playground? To me, that's what anarchy could be.

Now the emotional baggage has been put aside, I'll point out a few rational points here. The idea of Anarchy, to me, seems counterintuitive to normal human sociology. In the playground, where there is no real laws, the children create one (ie the pecking order). Doesn't it seem strange that even most animals have evolved a society with a leader, or an Alpha-male, or whatever?

Being the social animals we are, we just can't get a perfectly flat playing ground. (something that it seems anarchy and socialism both strive for). If someone did make up an anarchistic society (and I'm sure that it can be done), it would, given time, create it's own laws and create a leader. Now, this is just a history repeating thing; it may not be absolutely inevitable, but to create a society without a leader would be extraordinarily difficult. Besides, as society is right now, most people cannot be screwed taking social matters into their own hands. The prefer to just move along, mind their own business, stay in their own cliques, and make sure that they know who's above them and who's below them.

Absolute freedom, as you say, frightens the bejeezus out of most people. Mostly because then they have to think.

Right, that's my ranting out of the way. Next!

Oh, I don't expect everyone to agree. I'm just trying to explain and help people better understand the dynamics of Anarchism and where Anarchists are coming from. It'd be great if somebody said "Wow, that's great! I wanna be an anarchist, too!", but I'd be happy with "I now recognize the validity of Anarchism and understand that Anarchy, following this outline, could potentially be viable if implemented."

As for your question. Well, to me, rape is a more gruesome act than murder. After all, killing a person ends their suffering. Raping them ensures it will last manifold. Rapists should meet the same fate as those who kill people they don't know -- death. Preferably a slow one, but quick and clean will do. I dileneate between types of murder because I think a crime of passion or or a vengeance killing falls somewhere else. But spree killers, serial murderers and outright fucking loons who kill children, go on shooting rampages or blow up buildings, killing people who never did anything to them en masse for no other reason than outright bloodlust deserve death, at best. If the powers-that-be came to me and said "Joseph, you get to be the official vigilante of the US. You can do anything you want to any criminal within reason", the first thing I'd do is punch up my list of registered sex offenders and start working my way down the list. Yes, that's what I think is right, and if I was heading up a Vigilante group in a Practical Anarchism, rapists would die. Provided the victim didn't die, they'd get the chance to do whatever they wanted to the guy before execution.

You can kill a man in the heat of passion. You could perhaps understand or even empathize with a man who slaughtered the man fucking his wife, if not condone what he did. But there's no way in hell you can consider rape to be anything other than a premeditated act of torture that lasts a lifetime with a single application. If that doesn't merit death, I don't see what can.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Kirb --

Good points. Better than I could have brought up at your age, more than likely. Not that your age factors into this, mind you. What you said was more than I expect of most adults you care to name. But consider it a credit to yourself. You did well.

Bit of background on me before I kick this off; I was "the fat kid" in school. I got the shit beat out of me daily, and by people who I at the time called "friend". I have since learned friend does not mean "person who beats the shit out of you in exchange for your getting to hang out with them". I bring this up not to play the "I'm more fucked-up than you" game, but rather just to let you know where I'm coming from. I've been there two, and for me, it stuck until high school (only now, instead of "the fat kid" -- I wasn't fat -- I was "faggot", because I didn't date). That is, of course, until the bullying culminated to my getting stabbed in the side and summarily expelled.

Let me go on record as saying that I think you're right about the law. I think that by and large people don't break the law because they fear repricussions. And though I loathe fear as a preventionary method, this functions the same way in an Anarchism. Thing of it is, you don't not steal because you might go to jail. You don't steal because five angry motherfuckers with bats might break your legs and take the shit you stole. After awhile, this fear would become unnecessary. In our society, jail obviously isn't working as a deterrent, so people continue to quit crime. I'd think having your burglarizing career cut short by a compound fracture would reduce crime dramatically. And after awhile, it wouldn't be threat of bodily injury that prevents crime. Sure, the threat would always be there. But we'd go from "My fucking legs!" to "Shit, I'd better not do this or else some maniac might break my fucking legs." After awhile, it might be "I really shouldn't steal. Bad things happen to people who steal." Later still, perhaps "Bad shit happens to people who steal because they're fucking thieves and they have it coming. I won't be a thief." You might think this a fantasy, but it's far more likely and effective than "If I get caught I go to jail for six months. Shit, prison is so croweded with rapists and murderers that I'll probably plea-bargain probation."

Moving on, I'm sorry, but I don't see the validity of your playground scenario. Yes, children establish pecking orders, as do animals. But we're not animals, and we're not children. I used to say (and it has been said often before) that anarchy works with as few people as possible. I think now that I was wrong. I think anarchy works with as many people as possible. So when Bob declares himself king of the mountain, theres 500,000 -- not 5 -- people to push him off. One can control a group, but not a populous.

Genuinely, I think if Anarchy started today, you'd be right. If the government dissolved and they said "every man for himself, as of today", things would probably rapidly decay. But if people were prepared for the change, or even if the former scenario was given time -- and an unfortunate number of lives, I'm sure -- to settle, you'd see Practical Anarchism at work. Unfortunately, with the former "shell shock" scenario, you're just as likely to see a despot take over. People have to be prepared for this, they have to understand that the new rules mean you can stand up and speak and nobody is going to thumb you down. People are so used to compliance and sloth that they've forgotten the basic human instinct of self-preservation and expression. It needs to be taught to them again, and it needs to start with people who can do it for themselves.

And you seem to equate 'leader' with 'dictator', which I disagree with. Society will always need leaders, but in a Practical Anarchism the people understand that the leaders are one of them. That they can be deposed at any time the populace desides they have become dangerous, and ignored anytime the populous thinks they are wrong. In a Despotism, people follow the commands of one. In an Anarchsm, people choose to follow the suggestions of whichever leader they choose.


I never said this would be easy. It's going to take time, effort, education and example. But nothing worthwhile is easy, and anyone who tells me it "can't" be done is likely to get laughed at -- at best. The word "can't" isn't in my fucking dictionary.

-- Avenger



------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Interesting write up. You articulate your points very well. As we've discussed before our major points of difference are those of belief. You believe people are generally good, I believe they are generally weak. Weird, two agnostics dealing with issues of faith.

Just curious, have you ever read Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Heinlein? Good example of the kind of society I think you are advocating.

Sorry 'bout your job.

It's cool. Pimpin' for the man gave me a sick feeling in the guts, anyway. I've got a roommate who pays half the bills and I'll be collecting unemployment in the meantime (I think), so I should be alright until I find something else. I shudder to think of it, but even a McJob beats living on the street.

Anyway. You know what? I've been accussed to being many things in my life. I've been called bitter, I've been called a cynic, a bastard, a fucking rat-bastard, a terminal pessimist, and a mother-fucking rat-bastard, to name a few. But never have I been accused of believing that people are generally "good". To clarify, I don't think people are generally "good".

Let me put it this way; there are only three motivations that any person has for doing anything. Anything you do, ever, for whatever reason you may think you did it for, it all boils down to one of three things:
Instinct -- All your involuntary functions, your breed instinct, your fight-or-flight, etc. Programmed in, can't help it.
Love -- Anything you do for any positive reason.
Fear -- Thought I was going to say hate, didn't you? Nope. Hate is spawned of fear. It is impossible to hate anything without fear of something.

Things done out of love are inherently positive. Things done out of fear are inherently negative.

Right now, I think most people in this world act out of fear. I don't think people are generally good or generally bad, but that they are generally ruled by impulses and desires that are based around their fears and not their love of themselves or anything else. It's easy to write people off and say "generally, people are pieces of shit". I'd be inclined to agree in a broad sense. But the truth is never so clear-cut. And I feel (note, that's me having an opinion there) that in this case, the truth is that people are too frightened to love. The trick lies in teaching these poor people who are scared to death how to care about anything when they spend all their time struggling to survive.

Simply put, and I mean this wholeheartedly, "The world needs a hero."

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Hmm. You know Avenger, I used to think that the two of us had worldview that only intersected at a few points, but were on the whole fairly different creatures. I'm starting to realise I have more in common with you than I care to admit.

First off, your Three motivations? Well, a few years ago, I came up (after watching Final Destination") of 4 possible forces that influences Humanity. They're quite similar to yours:

Fear: This is what stops people breaking laws...
Faith: This is the counterpoint to fear. Where fear tells you what not to do, Faith tells you what to do instead ie "I shouldn't steal this Mars Bar, but if I pay for it, things should turn out better"
Death: The all important motivator. If people weren't concerned (not necessarily afraid) of death, we wouldn't really do all that much. A lot of what we do, we do because in our minds, we subconsciously know that we could die tomorrow, and we never could do it!.
Chance: Now, I'm a firm believer in the idea that Chance is an entity all of itself. Luck exists, and works it's ways usually without us noticing (we only tend to notice if Chance steers us out of our normal patterns). The force of Chance can knock us every which way, through a roll of the dice, flip of a coin, the car deciding to break down just now, or getting to the bus stop just a second too late. That's Chance.

Now, that's aside...

There was something as I wrote my reply to your Practical Anarchism that was niggling at me, but I couldn't quite figure out. I finally did.

You actively encourage vigilantism. Fine, there are good points to that, but the big one against has always been "How do you know he did it?" sure, 8 to 9 times out of 10, you might get the right guy (perhaps better if you do investigation beforehand), but what of all those who are innocent? It's not just that an innocent dies, but that a guilty party has a better chance of getting away scot free. I mean, if you think you've found the guy, why bother to keep looking. All the while, he's in his car thinking "Suckers!"

Even the American system of justice isn't fallible in this instance. There are stories of people being put to death, and later people found out that they were innocent, after all. Which is why I advocate a legal system, even one as cumbersome as today's. It may not be perfect, but at the very least, we have a better chance of getting the guilty party.

Especially, of course, when the vigilanties happen to be running on emotion, 'cause they "know" who did it.

Anyway, I'm sure you have plans against this. You're too bright not to have thought of this. But that's a really big concern for me.

Oh, and that Leader/Dictator thing? Any leader is a dictator, by the sheer reason that he is enforcing his will over his subjects. It just depends on how he chooses to use that power, as to whether he goes despot, or benevolent dictator. Hell, the US president is as close to despot as you can get without going over the edge. Here's a guy who can, with correct circumnstances, order a nuclear strike to any country that pisses him off, and possibly increase his local power base. The only thing that stops him rocketing off the deep end is the fact that all the intelligent people are watching him, and hopefully controlling him. Dictator, Leader, what's the difference? The actual term dictator quite closely matches leader, if you give it thought.

------------------
Lee Davis-Thalbourne/Kirby1024 - kirby1024@hotmail.com

Creator of the XA-1037. Ask me about my special rates for special customers!

[This message has been edited by Kirby1024 (edited 09-29-2001).]

Avenger, thank you.

Anarchism is alot like U.S. frontier society. Realistically, frontier societies can't rely on some distant governing body to tell them what to do or protect them. Likewise, there is little fear of having "order" imposed by a distant power.
In these cases, historically, thinks didn't dissolve into chaos. Jobs needed to be done and people did them. Services were traded for, schools were built, general stores operated, and local sheriffs were elected to organize whatever justice needed to be done instead of 'enforcing the law'. It wasn't perfect, but it worked. In a society were the most everyone had a firearm and many folks had combat experience (our Civil War), deaths were few. Who is going to draw a gun and start shooting people when they can all shoot back?

The biggest flaw I see in Anachistic thought is Freedom. Too few people really appreciate it. Too many people see freedom as one end of the scale and security at the other. The word they are really avoiding is responsibility.
In my experience, people to often trade their freedom for some sort of immediate safety and security. Like the 'fat kid' hanging out with a few other kids who beat him up. By staying with them, he hope that fewer kids will attack. Me, I was the small kid and the newby, to boot. I finally learned that if I fought back, no matter how much they hurt me physically, I felt better afterwards. They also stopped coming around, because they were other kids who were easier to pick on.

Jager --

Whether you agree with me or not, I thank you for getting my back on the matter. The truth is that you are quite correct in your comparison of an anarchistic society to the western frontier in the middle and late nineteenth century. More specifically, I liken it to the American Western Frontier with strong Unions for commerce and public works.

In the "Old West", as you said, people did their part and their job, and things didn't turn into one big cluster-fuck. No, it wasn't perfect. Bad things happened. But I think -- and this is mostly opinion -- that things were a lot better than they are now. Sure, there are some things I'd like to leave in the nineteenth century -- no rights for women, no rights for ethnicities, no rights for the weak -- but I don't think it's really too much to ask to have the best of both worlds. The advancement and acceptance (well...such as it is) of the modern world and the simple, honest life of a time when we didn't need to be monitored and could enforce our own. The difference is that people in that era had a greater sense of self, a more assertive view of the world and a deeper sense of responsibility and altruism than our jaded culture tends to produce. This, again, goes back to what I was saying about what needs to happen to "fix" things. At least so they work a bit better.

On your thoughts on freedom, I can only unfortunately agree. People equate security with being watched, and freedom scares them. Like Ben Franklin said, "Those who would trade freedom for security will end up with neither." This needs to change.


Kirb --

Let me say this outright; I advocate vigilantism. Yes. I mean that. If someone broke into my house to steal my shit, I'd full well give him a good reason to turn the fuck away. I don't think it's worth killing a man over -- unless he tries to kill me -- but the first call I made wouldn't be to the police. It'd be to my friend Mike in Cali; "Hey Mike, I just stabbed this motherfucker in the gut with a kitchen knife. He tried breaking into my house, so I schooled him. I figure he's halfway there -- maybe -- by now. Ah, I'm sure he'll live."

I encourage other people to do the same, though I don't think my endorsement means much good. If I saw a guy trying to rape some girl in an alley, you had better damn well believe that I'd fill him full of more holes than the plot of 'The Phantom Menace'. What the hell would you do? Ask him to stop? The fucked-up truth of the matter is that he probably won't care, and most people who commit violent crimes are carrying weapons. I look at it this way; if you've got a weapon out while committing a crime, whether it's to rob a store or commit murder, you've gone from the realm of negotiation. You no longer get the benefit of diplomacy. Anyone carrying a weapon must be assumed to be willing and able to use it, because the alternative may get you killed. Therefore, if a violent criminal is armed and therefore dangerous, you must further assume that the person is willing to kill in order to achieve their ends. Which means they won't mind killing you. That's why you don't even give the motherfucker a chance to talk. Just do it. Act quickly and decisively or die.

The exception to this, of course, is most any weapon that isn't a gun. If a guy has a knife, pipe, chain, etc. and isn't in a position to kill anybody with a singular decisive action, negotiation is always an option. You can try and talk the guy out of it. But anyone carrying a gun into a crime has forfeit his rights to have his piece heard. Put him down quickly and without remorse. Always assume the gun is loaded, always assume the person knows how to use it.

Anyway, getting to your question of "How do you know who did it?", I outlined this above, but I'll elaborate here. As Jager pointed out, the idea of a Vigilante crime punishment (as it isn't really "law enforcement") is not necessarily autonomous. If a corrupt Sheriff was caught imprisoning or hanging innocent ment, he himself had his neck stretched, and usually be the new sherriff. In an Anarchy, Vigilante groups are carefully watched by their peers for any signs of corruption. Not only are Vigilante groups watched by the populace, but very few Vigilantes work alone, and most often they work as a balance against each other with no outside influence. A lone Vigilante might be convinced that Mr. Smith murdered the wife of Mr. Jones when in fact he just doesn't like Mr. Smith and it was really Mr. Jones who murdered his own spouse and decide to hunt down the "criminal" and deliver justice. But lone Vigilantes aren't effective, quite frankly. They need support. Alternatively, the public can make rules. And in a given area, perhaps the locals only recognize groups of 4 or more as sanctioned Vigilantes. Perhaps lone Vigilantes have to be public about their actions and any work they do is monitored by concerned citizen groups. Whatever the case, Vigilantes are regulated by the people as they work for the people, and no government interference is needed.

I disagree completely on the Leader/Dictator comparison you make, though I'll bet that our schism on this point is less a matter of actual differing opinions and more a matter of semantics. I'll bet that my idea of a "leader" differs greatly from yours. Perhaps we should work to delineate this.

Lastly, I liked your four motivations, but there's a couple of tiny points I'd like to address.

I think Faith is based off Fear. I know I'll catch a lot of shit for this, but I sincerely think that Faith is a result of being afraid of disappointing God, afraid of eternal punishment, afraid of violation of the tenets of your faith, etc. Death also falls under Fear for my purposes, as fear of death is still just fear. I, too, put stock in chance -- luck -- fate -- whatever you try to call it. But I wouldn't call it a motivator of human activity. Randomality is a force in this world, but I don't feel it's one that influences peoples' judgement.

Well played, though, Kirb.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Avenger,

Well, first up, the leader thing. This is probably the closest I can get to verbalising my definition of leader:

Leader: A person who leads people, either by example or by order, to perform a given task or procedure.

The thing is, whether you're popularly voted in, or whether you step up and take command, as a leader you must exert your will onto those under you in order to perform your given task (whether it's the betterment of humanity, or winning a war). Generally, that exertion of will isn't very large - by procedure or charisma, people will prefer to do what is asked of them.

After that, it's just a matter of degrees really as to what type of leader you are. Benevolent Dictator, Malevolent Dictator, "Chosen by the People", either way, a leader still needs to exert will. This is, of course, why most of us don't like our elected leaders - we expect them to do exactly what we want to do, when in fact it's often essential to do what is contrary to public opinion. They must occaisonally exert their will contrary to the will of the populace.

Hence, your definition of dictator (ie person who leads by force) is technically usable to any other leader type. To me, anyway. I just understand that sometimes, a dictator is what's required, instead of just a leader.

Next, the motivations. I guess you're right, Fear and Faith run along very similar lines. The Death motivation, however, wasn't really a death thing. I guess you could put it to time really. You say you don't fear death (that's OK, neither do I, although reincarnation doesn't come into it), thus the Death motivation would be invalid, yes? Yet, you still get out of bed. You still choose to live your day, do things "that need to be done", etc etc. I say you do those things because even if you don't fear death, you realise that you're not going to be around forever. Thus, you do what you can before you die (because you're pretty sure you can't keep going after that period of time...) Oh, and I never said Chance affects decisions, I just said it influenced people. It's sort of like a mirror that redirects the decisions you make.

Finally, back to Vigilantism. Yes, I know that there are some good points to it. However...

I have found that most often vigilantism tends to run mainly on huge amounts of emotion. Me being an INTP/INTJ personality type, I find that emotion is not the best force to be running your mind when you're dealing with life and death. I'm a very logical person, and I like to make sure the person I'm killing actually deserved it. Yes, you can do that under anarchy, it's easily done. But what you line up is simply how to stop everyone in town doing it. Not how to switch off that emotion so that people simply don't get carried away!

Eh, I think I'm probably a little too attached to the system we have. I can see it's flawed, but it does tend to work the majority of the time.

------------------
Lee Davis-Thalbourne/Kirby1024 - kirby1024@hotmail.com

Creator of the XA-1037. Ask me about my special rates for special customers!

More on this when I have more time, but something I'd like to point out right now; you mentioned your preference of the system "we" have, but in truth, it's the system that you and everyone else in Oz has. You live in Australia -- we live in America. And there are big fucking differences between the two places.

More to come.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Kirb --

Here we go again. Alright, time to break it down, old-schoo'.

As I may have suspected, our schism over the concept of the leader was mostly a semantical one. You seem to equate the notion of a leader with that of a tyrant who exerts his will on the populace through dictation, which is a common view. I associate the word 'leader' with words like 'inspiration' and 'hero'. To me, a leader is someone who leads by example. They don't need to exert their will on others. They give people an example, an idea, a suggestion, and then blaze the trail for anyone who would dare rally under them, if only for a day, or even an hour.

Leader: A person who uses their actions to provide an example or propose an idea for others to take up, and a guide (when one provides necessary) to that end.

The key to happy leaders and happy followers (that words leaves an icky taste on the palette) is that nobody has to follow any leader they don't want to. Any potential follower never has to follow. Anyone can leave at any time, and that's the important part.

Scheisse, company is here. More on motivations later.

-- Avenger

------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Another thing.

An Anarchistic society could have a police force, though probably not a judiciary. The difference is this; the Anarchy police's job would be to invesitgate crimes against the society. Find someone murdered? The police show up, look for clues, and track down the purp. Then, they take their evidence to the local community who passages judgement.
The police force is both a government institution and a job. Take away the institution, but the job still needs to be done. Just like a doctor or engineer.

Avenger, is this more or less correct?

I am beginning to understand where socialists and anarchists had their falling out. Anarchists are alot more brutal (pragmatic) in their approach to society.

Kirb --

Okay, moving on to Death as a motivation. I still feel that it falls under fear, even uner the circumstances you listed. After all, I look at it this way. No, I do not fear death. The notion of my potential being cut short is an undesireable one, but I don't spend my life afraid of it's end like a lot of people. Life is the defiance of death in action. I don't fear death. What I do fear is failure. If I died tomorrow, I would have failed to accomplish what I want to accomplish in my life.

Brief Interlude; I don't really believe in reincarnation. It simply seems to be what's most likely to me. I don't even subscribe to it. If you put a gun to my head and asked, I couldn't tell you that I believe anything one way or the other. But I like the idea of reincarnation.

Anyway, what I'm getting at with this is that yes, you get out of bed, choose to live day by day and do things "that need to be done" not necessarily because you fear death, but because you fear failure or not accomplishing your goals in (this?) life. I know that's why I get up every day and do what I do. The thought of dying with my actions have no effect on the world is what frightens me.

Moving on, I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you said. You're quite correct, I tagged your explanation of chance as a human action motivator and not a driving force behind fate. Agreed, I think that fortune can be factored into the whole of human action.

Wow, Kirb, you're a INTP/INTJ? That's pretty fuckin' cool, man. It's been awhile since I took the Meyers-Briggs, but the last time I did in semester 1 of Critical Thinking (about three years ago), I was exactly an INTP/INTJ, too. Though I think it's probably changed if just a little by now. I agree with you, though, if I was going to kill a man, I'd do my research and make sure the guy really had it coming. I'm all about circumstance and motive.

However, catching someone in the act negates the need for this sort of discerning. And as Jager points out (which I'll address next), the Vigilante groups aren't necessarily the ones who do the research and pin the perp. While it can be, the people in charge of the investigative end shouldn't be the same people who take care of the executory end.

To use a trite but very accurate example, the relationship is very similar to that of the three Zeal Creeds in Hunter. The job of the Judge is to gain recon on the enemy and determine whether or not they prove a threat to humanity. When a monster has been declared a threat, they give the green light to the Avengers who take the fucker down. When a monster has been declared only a potential threat (one that hasn't done anything but may), the Defenders are put on alert and told to keep their eyes open. This is part of the reason I love Hunter so much; because Hunters are so disorganized they're stumbling through their mission at present, but should the Imbued organize, they would function very very much like an Anarchistic society. Of course, they have the advantage of Edges to clearly delineate what role they have. Then again, civvies in an Anarchistic society have the distinct advantage of being able to change their role.


Jager --

Correct again, though I would hasten to use the term "Police Force". More appropriately, such a group would be more of an "Investigative Unit" made up of individuals with the experience and skill necessary to investigate crimes. In all other regards, though, you are quite correct, though apprehension or execution (if necessary) may be left up to a well-trained Vigilante "hit squad" who's speciality lies in the neutralization of threats to society.

Unfortunately, you're quite correct about Socialism and Anarchism. Socialism is quite a bit like Anarchism if the ACLU was in charge of the country. Not that I'm against the ACLU by any measure, don't get me wrong. But one can take the rights of people who have voluntarily forfeit their rights a little too far, as I feel the ACLU occassionally does. Anarchism calls for decisive action against a threat for the better of society, Socialism demands that every criminal be given every possible chance to prove innocence or reform for the same reason.

-- Avenger


------------------
Don't try to run, you son of a bitch. You'll just die tired.

avengingcrusader@hotmail.com

Here, I thought I'd add this in. It's an entry for "Anarchism" from the 1910 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't necessarily agree with everything written here, but it might give you an idea of how things have changed in a century. This was the view of Anarchism as written by the most mass-media source of information of the day. This sort of entry would be pulled before press these days.

"Anarchism",
from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. , and , contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any