Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am not a fascist by any means, though I do believe the concept and idea behind a governing body is appealling and necessary. On the other hand, I do fully understand reasons for anarchism. The basics of its establishment, the idea that people rather than governments should control their own fates, is admittedly somewhat noble. I am all for the little guy having more power. However, I find fault with the objective of the anarchists: abolishing governments and all ruling systems that dictate human life. Sure. But for everyone who proposes the destruction of such systems as government and organized religion in favour of the people, I ask a simple question:

"Have you actually met the people?"


Not to boast, but I've been around the world quite a bit, and I've met a large number of people in my life. I feel I can say in all honesty that I have met "the people" anarchists vouch so strongly for. I'm not impressed. In fact, it makes me worried in a way. My belief is as follows.

For one, if we were to abolish governing systems and let people run their own lives, this would mean letting EVERYONE run their own lives. I do think chaos would ensue, for a very long time. Gun-nuts would fire at the people they didn't approve of, arsonists would start fires without concern, NAMBLA members and 4Chan regulars would crawl from their basements looking for fun...It would be like a war with no sides. It may sound like an exaggeration, but consider a world devoid of rulers for just a moment. In my head, you can almost smell the burning cars. It's not a good smell.

You may argue that people will use their own logic and reason to guide them through troubled times. To which I ask: ever seen someone trampled to death as people flee a war scene or burning wreck? Under the right and wrong circumstances, a human will forget all logic and push through a field of old ladies if it means saving their own hide. People might use reason, sure, but only if that reasoning applies to their own interests.

Humans, in my exerpience, suffer from one major sin rather than the usual seven we're familiar with: pride. Arrogance. It comes in many forms, and it results in many bad things happening. Arrogant people are convinced they are the s**t, and everyone else is simply s**t. Many are sharks who have a tendency to pick apart people that don't fit into their world, and strive for success so that they can be happy and nobody else. There's others who feel there is no point to life, think they have broken life's Da Vinci code, and will never truly be happy unless everyone realizes this "universal truth" they think they have uncovered. We have those among us who think they are edgy, witty and clever, and don't believe people who are all of the above are somehow wrong and deserve absolutely nothing.

Notice how I mentioned continually that people tear apart those who aren't like them, those they aren't familiar with. It's a big, big fault. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong." The only thing keeping many of these people from busting out and murdering everyone they don't find cool on site is the fear of being arrested, or the fear of retribution from the government. If not for that, I probably would have been stuck on a pike in Juniour High. They need to be kept in check for our sakes.


I also strongly believe this because of the population of earth at the moment. If human life totalled a billion in total, then maybe just maybe we'd be better off without governments. But with six billion people on the planet, we need to be monitored in some way. I don't mean in the Big Brother Is Watching You kind of way, mind. I'm talking about a competent government system dedicated to ensuring that people are happy and not murdering each other.


This leads into my solution. Anarchism is a political/social view that was born because of poor government decisions and serious faults brought about by arrogant, apathetic and, in many cases, megalomaniacal members of the ruling classes. In other words: BAD LEADERS. If our government makes a crippling mistake, our solution should not be to abolish the entire system. That is a typical human response: destroy what we don't like. No, our solution should be to get BETTER LEADERS instead. Think about it: Conservativism is not a necessarily bad government system. It just needs better representatives, people who don't treat and mistreat others based on race or creed or class. Same goes for systems like organized religion. Catholicism causing a ruckus? The best solution would most likely be to get a better Pope, one who doesn't think AIDS is the fault of the victim or that homosexuality is a sign of evil.


The reason why I believe this is because I don't believe that people set up government systems willingly knowing that they would be controlling the braindead masses. How many inventions of mankind were intentionally created to hurt others? Not many. It's all about useage. Consider the Wright Brothers, some of my favourite inventors. They had a simple dream, to be able to fly above the clouds and look down on the people. I doubt strongly that they wanted their invention to be used for transporting drugs or dropping bombs on natives. Also, wasn't gunpowder originally used for fireworks in Asia, rather than cannons and muskets? These are potentially good inventions, we just need to take care of how they are used.


Perhaps I'm full of hot air. Perhaps all this is just the insane ramblings of a Canadian with nothing better to do on a Sunday night. Perhaps I don't see the angles of the angels, or how much damage the idea of government has ACTUALLY caused. Perhaps it is not rulers but the system that is damaging, and I'm just another puppet of the system.

I don't know.

Why don't you, the viewers at home, tell me?


**EDIT: Silly me, lumping Libertarianism into this category. Thanks, Strideo!**

Sire of the Strides,

You were actually a lot more informative than most people I talked to regarding this issue. I was told by my associates that Libertarianism was like anarchism but less violent. Seems they, and in turn I, were wrong. They will be fired shortly.

My post will be redone accordingly.

-KDash

Oh, thank you! Glad I could be of help.
You are quite right. In fact anarchy has been practiced in small isolated groups all over the globe. Small scattered frontiere homesteads in west Pennsylvania during the early 1750's might be a good example. Just out of the effective reach of the colonial government, no one settler is considered the leader of the others, they form a lose society with certain social expectations but no real law. It isn't really all that chaotic untill the French & Indian War then all hell breaks loose.

Anarchy has worked in small isolated communities but as the population grows it usually breaks apart into a more lawful and governed society. I can't think of any examlpe of a functioning mass-anarchist society.