Oh, my . . . I'm going to have to abandon my line-wrapping for this particular rant.
Anarchy--literally, "absence of archons" is a state of having *no rulers*, not necessarily "no rules", and not necessarily disorder. In fact, respect for some kind of loosely-held, generally-accepted rules is required for an anarchy to thrive; but this is something I can hardly expect one to understand, who is so obviously deluded by statism as actually to believe that human beings can be trusted to "protect" others, if "given" power! (Hint: even in the most seemingly-benign societies, power, once "given", is then "taken" from the posterity of the "givers", without consent, by mere accident of birth.)
I have news for you: the very article on which you were commenting is a far better argument for anarchy, than for government, as it shows a classic example of the abuses that inevitably arise in the presence of *any* concentration of power in the hands of an elite. The asshats allegedly committing these crimes against the human race are themselves the law, as far as they are concerned. They are the ones making and enforcing the rules. Yet you actually believe, after witnessing the likes of this, that any body politic can safely be given a monopoly on "protecting" the population at large? This is why I call you "delusional".
The only protection that such concentration of power ever creates is a "protection" *racket*: read enough world history, and this becomes painfully clear. Any notions that this can be prevented, in a structure holding a monopoly on the power to compel others to a particular action, is nothing but the same delusional notion of the perfectibility of the human species that underlies communisim, and a collection of other failed political theories. It is even a delusion held by some anarchist political philosophers; although certainly not by all, and most especially not by myself.
Like it or lump it, the best we can hope for, under any political system or social order, is "merely good enough". I do think we can manage that, without somebody holding a gun to our collective heads. In fact, I believe the biggest impediment is that anyone *can* wield that kind of power over entire populations. Eliminate all of the would-be archons--or better yet, let them eliminate each other, and much of the very behavior described in the artical that started this whole thread is likely to vanish into thin air, for the simple reason that most human being want simply to be left the fsck alone!
Curiously enough, there have been successful anarchies, even in twentieth-century Europe. So successful, in fact, that Franco and his goons are noted for having exterminated a widespread anarchist movement in Spain, since they effectively put the lie to his authoritarianism.
A number the "First Nations" of North America were basically anarchic: they had leaders, who might rally supporters to accomplish a goal, but not rulers who could compel others to a particular action. At least one of these, the Ani-Yunwiya, better known as Tsalagi (or "Cherokee") were wildly successful in maintaining and defending a large homeland, despite continual skirmishes with other nations, with "chiefs" (as European colonizers would later call them) that were more like "advisers".
For that matter, the ancient Hebrews, between the Exodus and the installation of King Saul, had only the Judges, who served as little more than "wise men"; any notion of "rule" was reserved to the Deity, and not something for human beings to seek. In fact, at least one[1] of the four, major traditions evident in the Torah clearly considers the later monarchy to have been a gross mistake, barely tolerated by G_d, as an accomodation to the people's sitff-necked, thick-headedness.
So don't expect to spout your notion that anarchy necessarily means social collapse, without being challenged. Meanwhile, if you really think people can be controlled by force, or the threat of it, why dont you find yourself a nice, police state to live in, and tell us how it goes, for you?
--
HadEnuf!
-----
[1] I do not remember which of the "E" (Elohist), "D" (Deuteronomic) or "P" (Priestly) traditions is the most critical; but only "J" (Yahwist) is closely aligned with the monarchy. |
