(June 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ^
I think I've found a great way to explain why I get a giggle out of anarchy. Most of the folks I've ever had the pleasure of talking to from the pro-anarchy camp don't advocate a lawless society filled with roving bands of criminals. Even in the anarchists society there are rules. They (speaking only for those I've discussed this with, and with full knowledge that I may be missing some nuance) simply insist that there should be no centralized state or authority enforcing those rules. The question I have to ask is this (and perhaps some pro-anarchy type would help me with this one). Of what use are rules with no authority to enforce them, and if enforcement is handled by "the locals" as it were, are they not "the state"?
To me, it would seem that anarchy would enable precisely the opposite of what anarchists seem to desire. Instead of a stateless society we would be saddled with many smaller, insulated states, each as subject to abuse of power as any other (and perhaps more-so, imho).
You make a valid point; let me try to address it as someone who fits the definition of the pro-anarchist type of whom you speak. The idea of self or community orientated regulation is one that has merits - in an ideal world. It places equal responsibility on everyone to ensure that the society functions. In a sense, yes, the locals do become the state. Realistically though, it is a pipe dream. The very concept is self defeating, in that as soon as someone makes an independent decision or action that affects the community, they automatically elevate themselves to a position of authority. In order to avoid that, there then has to be a set of agreed rules to govern what each member of the community can and cannot do. However, that will inevitably lead to an authority being put in place to regulate and maintain those rules.
Yes, most pro-anarchist types are perfectly aware of the blatantly apparent problems with this idealism, too. However, the dream loses none of its appeal. You see, there are still positive changes that can happen in the course of trying to achieve that dream. In conclusion: It is the journey towards this utopia that matters, not whether it will ever be achieved. If people start treating each other with even a slightly higher degree of compassion, respect and consideration, then it all becomes worthwhile. If we reach the stage where greed and selfishness are a thing of the past, people will have no problem trusting in the state. It doesn't matter that most people have the definitions wrong; it is their vision for a better world that matters.
I hope that made sense...
