Friday, April 29, 2011
Anarchy
People who have the stupid idea that Anarchy is a nice idea need to be struck a few times in the head with a good ol' fashioned cudgel. Anarchy is natural selection at its most raw form. But like communism I am of the opinion that it cannot exist on a large scale for any considerable period of time. In anarchy I can kill and butcher whomever I want and as long as I have the bigger gun at the end of the day it's completely alright. Morals make people weak and so it would set the stage for the most morally repugnant members of society to be at the advantage because they would hold nothing back. Eventually those moral-less folks would band together forming what? A Government! *Yayyyyy!* Anarchy can't exist for an extended period of time unless all members of society are insane. I personally find those teenagers who wear the symbol of Anarchy deserving of particularly unpleasant things, not only being cudgeled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An anarchist system (the phrase itself is an oxymoron) would mean little more than hitting the reset button on civilization:
ReplyDeleteThe world would fall back to the traditional family. In a lawless, free-for-all world in which weapons exist, the necessity for food will lead some intelligent people to agriculture, others to hunting, etc. Many, however, would resort to stealing and violence to find food. There would quickly be a necessity to provide for oneself, and if one did not find a spouse and reproduce, natural selection would weed one out of the gene pool. Those who elect promiscuous forms of reproduction would quickly learn that, without laws to protect them, human passions and instincts will lead most non-monogamists to a swift end. Such "families" would quickly dissolve, either through violence or whatever, and the broken families left to fend for themselves would either revert back to the traditional family or else would also become extinct.
To protect one's family, rules would be set up. Defenses would be set up. Weapons would be stocked. Land would be guarded. Soon relatives would realize the strength in banding together, and tribes would form. Tribes would set rules for marriage and morality (eliminating promiscuity), honesty (eliminating theft), and general goodness (not killing other members of tribe, etc.) as a prerequisite for membership in the tribe.
The tribes would likely live either at war with or in suspicious tolerance of one another, dividing into countries as they multiply and expand and absorb or squash smaller, weaker tribes on nearby land.
In effect, civilization as we know it now would simply be set back about ten thousand years.
Although in all likelihood, unless the entire WORLD were to begin living in anarchy all at once, any one nation or people who decided to live in such a way would quickly find their divided, lawless state crushed and absorbed into a stronger neighbor's.
Which might explain why an anarchist system (again, the oxymoron) has never succeeded.