The more laws a society creates, the less freedom individuals will have; the less freedom that an individual has, the more chaos will ensue from rebellion.
Rebellion occurs because of the prohibitions placed on an individual's spirit.
If the rebellion is actually legit then it will always be a majority, which has only occurred a few times in history i.e. each respective countries civil war.
Whats your definition of a free society - no laws, go live in the bush, this is a civilized, developing world. There is no development through Anarchy everyone will kill eachother
Anarchy doesn't immediately equal Chaos. Chaos is a product of rebelling against a certain ideal or way of life with force and destruction. Anarchy is a refusal to follow rules and laws set by an establishment, but that doesn't mean that chaos will ensue. Several anarchists may agree to work together towards a unified goal - that is not chaos, and does not necessarily mean violence towards others. It is certainly true that chaos can be viewed as a form of anarchy, but when an Anarchy State is thought of, it is rare to find chaos as an underpinning element, only the refusal to follow any governing body, and individuals working together to meet their own needs.
I believe in the developing civilised world, but the more laws you create in a civilised world, the closer you get to a totalitarian state that forces the people to its will. Many Countries struggle to know where to draw the line, others don't care; rebellions have occurred because of those restrictions. Chaos ensues, sometimes for long periods, sometimes for short periods; and sometimes a peaceful anarchy follows (and I mean that in terms of a country existing within a governingless state). I do believe that in a civilised world we need laws and general modes of behaviour towards others, but it also needs to be recognised that we can't force people to act that way, but we can help to protect those from violent offenders who wish to spread chaos in the name of Anarchy.
Anarchy simply isn't walking through town and tipping over rubbish bins - that's called being a dick; nor is it picking up a gun and killing someone because you want what they have, or because you can. Anarchy may include these things, but it may include all other things that arn't governed as well. "There is no development through Anarchy - everyone will kill each other" is a naive statement. It (to me) fails to recognise that laws and a governed state don't stop people from killing each other - morals, self worth and trust in other people are what stop us from killing each other. And those can all exist as a part of an Anarchist state.
If the rebellion is actually legit then it will always be a majority, which has only occurred a few times in history i.e. each respective countries civil war.
ReplyDeleteWhats your definition of a free society - no laws, go live in the bush, this is a civilized, developing world. There is no development through Anarchy everyone will kill eachother
Anarchy doesn't immediately equal Chaos. Chaos is a product of rebelling against a certain ideal or way of life with force and destruction. Anarchy is a refusal to follow rules and laws set by an establishment, but that doesn't mean that chaos will ensue. Several anarchists may agree to work together towards a unified goal - that is not chaos, and does not necessarily mean violence towards others. It is certainly true that chaos can be viewed as a form of anarchy, but when an Anarchy State is thought of, it is rare to find chaos as an underpinning element, only the refusal to follow any governing body, and individuals working together to meet their own needs.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the developing civilised world, but the more laws you create in a civilised world, the closer you get to a totalitarian state that forces the people to its will. Many Countries struggle to know where to draw the line, others don't care; rebellions have occurred because of those restrictions. Chaos ensues, sometimes for long periods, sometimes for short periods; and sometimes a peaceful anarchy follows (and I mean that in terms of a country existing within a governingless state). I do believe that in a civilised world we need laws and general modes of behaviour towards others, but it also needs to be recognised that we can't force people to act that way, but we can help to protect those from violent offenders who wish to spread chaos in the name of Anarchy.
Anarchy simply isn't walking through town and tipping over rubbish bins - that's called being a dick; nor is it picking up a gun and killing someone because you want what they have, or because you can. Anarchy may include these things, but it may include all other things that arn't governed as well. "There is no development through Anarchy - everyone will kill each other" is a naive statement. It (to me) fails to recognise that laws and a governed state don't stop people from killing each other - morals, self worth and trust in other people are what stop us from killing each other. And those can all exist as a part of an Anarchist state.