Black Lagoon?Originally Posted by food
Black Lagoon?
Ah, OK.
Somalia is hardly "anarchist", though. It has governments, they're just not formally recognised and mostly consist of warlords with guns.
No, I'm willing to admit that pure anarchy doesn't necessarily always work in practice, but that isn't the same as saying it's not good as an ideal, and it's certainly not the same as saying a brutal dictatorship is better.
Yeah, man, that's where all the bad anarchy is, we're going to make a civilization with the good anarchists.
No, that's not anarchy (as a political system, at least) at all. There is "order" and a "government" there, it's just implemented by warlords and Islamic fundamentalists, and not internationally recognised.
You can, perhaps, argue that that is what an anarchist society would devolve in to eventually, but it is not an anarchist society in itself, and nor has it ever been one. An anarchist society does not have rulers (it might have leaders who are elected, perhaps, but they certainly would not be particularly powerful), even informal ones.
Last edited by Mike1984; July 17th, 2012 at 11:05 AM.
See, they're doing anarchy wrong.
So it is effectively anarchist, since the government is just there for show and essentially nonexistent.
No, not at all. They're not "doing" anarchy at all. None of the people there are anarchists, they're warlords trying to gain control for theirselves, and impose their order on others. It's not an anarchist society, it's a war between large numbers of authoritarians each vying for sole control of the country.
The problem here is that you're conflating the meaning of anarchy as a political system (which is a society without rulers and where people are free to live as they wish) and the colloquial meaning of anarchy (which means any society without a formal government, even if it has informal rulers and little freedom). The two are not the same, and I do not support the second (although the second is still preferable to a brutal dictatorship, if only because it can be more easily resolved).
Last edited by Mike1984; July 17th, 2012 at 11:10 AM.
So how do you prevent informal rulers from springing up?
No, because the warlords act as a government. They impose their own laws and rules on the people they rule, and use fear to enforce their dictats. They might not be formally recognised as such, but that is still what they are.
Last edited by Mike1984; July 17th, 2012 at 11:12 AM.
Getting killed by a militia in an anarchist society is not any superior to getting killed by the SS-esque police of a dictator.
Anarchism is like Communism, the ideal is not necessarily bad, but because humans are stupid and lazy creatures, it turns to shit every time you try to implement it.
If only the Somalians were true enlightened anarchists, then they'd understand...
You kill them and declare yourself as the boss.
O wait...
EDIT:
On a serious note, that's what militia is for, which is why the militia is like a large part of early US history.
Last edited by food; July 17th, 2012 at 11:14 AM.
Well, the same way as any society does. You just don't let them. You ignore their claims to authority and, if necessary, fight them.
The concept of a "formal" government is purely one of semantics anyway. All they have backing them are the laws that either they themselves made or, else, that some previous government has made. There is no fundamental reason why the government of any country is more legitimate than the Somalian warlords are. Indeed, there are several countries that have perfectly working "legitimate" governments and, yet, are not recognised as such by most countries (Northern Cyprus and Taiwan being the most obvious).
Last edited by Mike1984; July 17th, 2012 at 11:17 AM.
First they came for the governors, and I let them go because I was not a governor...
No, the point is that Somalia has absolutely fuck all to do with anarchy in the political sense.
Perhaps, but at least the militia in an anarchist society doesn't have the entire power of a state behind it if it does try to kill you.
When?Anarchism is like Communism, the ideal is not necessarily bad, but because humans are stupid and lazy creatures, it turns to shit every time you try to implement it.
Name one instance when someone has actually tried to implement anarchism (and, no, rebelling against a government to impose a different government does not count) and failed due to anything other than external pressure.
thread is now anarchy.
Don't let them?
That's like telling someone to not breath.
It's hard coded into the genes of social animals to follow the leader and form cliques. Anarchism is doomed to fail and only looks good on paper.
O and all that looting and raping during government transition show SO much promise for anarchism.
Last edited by food; July 17th, 2012 at 11:19 AM.
I believe this is the point.
Honestly, though, I'm not sure anarchy actually would work for society as a whole, although it can work for some subset of it. It needs to be voluntary to work, and some people simply cannot cope with the concept of not having a government to control their lives, or formal rules to abide by. If one does not exist, they will latch on to any authority figure they can find.
However, it's still a hell of a lot better than a brutal dictatorship.
Yeah, this is what I was getting at.
Eventually someone's going to be like "guys stick with me I have all the guns".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
