Absurdism

[BlackUnicorn]

It depends who is dominant in the society, if a religious group was dominant then it is likely that anarchy would be based more around that religious group in how it functions. I prefer systems that make divisions between the economic system and the political system, and ideologies and religions, which is why my ideal is some adaption of Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Communism (with the end result of the end of the state, corporations and the worst of the economic system, and a new set of social contracts to replace the laws we are now governed under, education and all other functions of government including welfare would become the role of non-for profit community organizations).

If a religious group was dominant, it would not be anarchy. It would be theocracy. There is a difference. If a corporation ruled, it would be fascism. If communism was the factor, no matter how much Marx said it would be the end result, it would not be "anarcho-marxism". It would be communism, not anarchy. To me, anarchy is a complete lack of any law or any guiding govt or economic principle. Anarchy would have no social contracts or laws. anarchy would, to me, be the "law of the jungle" for one brief moment in time before the alpha human decided to create a system in order to keep his (or hers) and his people in perpetual power while the rest are held in lower stations.

Could you produce an historical group of people who stayed in pure anarchy for longer than one generation? I ask this because I have a "war lord" hypothesis when it comes to pure anarchy. My "war lord" hypothesis says that if true anarchy was ever established, a war lord would eventually collect followers and dominate the niche and officially end the anarchy with whatever said warlord supports for government/social/economic pleasures. If my "war lord" concept is true, then absurdism strikes HARSHLY again..that politics, just like religion, are in a state of constant flux because of the human inability to find inherent meaning in the cosmos.

As for humans in general, there will always be people who want to control or hurt others, unfortunately in order to restrain them they might have to be harmed in the process, there is no way to deal with it except education, punishment or exile. As for slavery and oppression they will always exist, slavery is after all relative to the individual and the group, same with oppression, so really I think you need a system that allows people to group among themselves and rule themselves (you can't really have that without light handed or loose government), but if you wanted to go so far as actual independence and form your own state, then so long as its your property and not other people's (or people) I don't see why not. The way I see things is that authority and the power that comes with it is there to be abused (there are very few kind hearted people), so it has to be limited as much as possible to provide a just system.

How do you educate people with out inserting human intent into it? How do you restrain people and also be an anarchist? Wouldnt a TRUE anarchist not do anything to anyone unless he or his family members were directly threatened? Perhaps my idea of anarchy is skewed. I agree with your quotes on power and authority.

By the way, I appreciate the in depth discussion on this topic. I have always said that "absurdism LOOKS simple on the surface, but it encompasses much more than we think it does. If it is human created, the chances of it being absurd go through the roof." Of course that is not an absolute statement, as many human advancements have done good, like scientific and other such advancements. That is why absurdists focus on words such as "probably", and "maybe", and "more than likely".

Depends how extreme the religious or ideological group is, some might be prepared to peacefully exist and others not (thus imposing their will on others), could it cope in such a crisis and repel a group determined enough to construct a theocracy or state system of some kind, unlikely unless the group involved was small and could be set upon by the others before it becomes stronger than the others (in a kinda pack mentality).

I never believe in straight anarchy, it needs a proven system to run it aka capitalism (or communism to an extent), so the goal in my mind would be to restrain human behavior only when humans inflict harm on others (physically or financially), courts would still exist, so would police (as privately funded security for business and community police made up of trained volunteers). But I can't deny that funding and education quality would differ, not to mention if the individuals in the community are total layabouts and get hooked on bad drugs and alcohol, then it won't work, but exiling members of the community to other communities would still be an option then.