[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
- a state of society without government or law.
- political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
- a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
- confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
There are obviously some definition(s) (#3) that fit your model. However, #s 2 and 4 seem diametrically opposed to #3. “A cooperative and voluntary association…organized society” implies the lack of confusion and chaos.
Please do not see my posts here as argumentative or sarcastic as they often may be on other threads but rather as strictly inquisitive.
Okay. I think it might be instructive here to repeat what I said a few months back when you asked me about anarchy. This is for you, too, Irish. So listen up (I’ve had a few Jameson’s, so bear it in mind).
I feel about government about the same as I feel about the vast majority of people in general: I don’t hate 'em, I just prefer it when they’re not around. Long as they’re at a distance, and reeeeal quiet, we get along just fine. Anarchy meaning “without a ruler,” I figure that any man who will not be ruled is, by definition, an anarchist. A group of people who refuse to be ruled might be thought of as an anarchic society.
“Hedonist” is another word that people are loath to use to describe themselves, because so many negative connotations have been stuck onto the word. Hedonists are considered immoral, irresponsible, and self-gratifying at the expense of their own health and society. Just like anarchists are commonly thought of as being advocates of upheaval, disorder, and chaos.
Really, though, a hedonist is just someone who believes that pleasure is the only worthwhile motivating force in his own life. Most people are motivated by fear of loss, fear of pain, fear of ostracism, or fear of death. Being motivated by pleasure is, in my estimation, highly preferable to this.
A ruler has the power to confiscate, to torture, to incarcerate, and to execute. He wouldn’t rule for very long if he didn’t have this power at his disposal. A man who isn’t motivated by fear of this power, however, can’t be ruled.
As Heinlein said,
“Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything–you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” [/quote]
I agree with what you’re saying, and believe it or not feel the same way. I’m just a bit anti-authoritarian, and I hate when the gov’t gets involved in things too.
However, with humans being the social animals we are, in desperate need of a hierarchy, it would never work. It would work for some of us- Varq, Push, Hedo, Thunder… there’s really not anyone on this board that couldn’t handle their own affairs and not need much government intervention.
But think of all the people who never pay attention to politics, have no concept of how to get by on their own, and expect the gov’t to do the great majority of the work for them. This is a large population, the ones that expect their leaves to be picked up, their garbage to be disposed of, their sewers to work, their roads maintained. That’s us too. Things like this could not be achieved without some sort of government… and I trust private companies even less to do a reliably good job when there is no oversight.
Private companies without government is bad, just like government without the media is bad. All lead to abuses of power.
