Monday, April 23, 2007

This is the post, yes, the post, in which to put any continuation of the philosophical discussion started in my Devo post, of all things.

posted by Duamuteffe @ 6:24 AM   5 comments

5 Comments:

At 12:48 AM, Blogger Dagdamor said...

well, where were we? wow, 4,er, 5 w's in a row. right, back to philosophy, do you believe that a true anarchy, of voluntary peace, could work on any scale?

 
At 4:21 AM, Blogger Duamuteffe said...

True anarchy isn't going to work immediately upon the loss of a government because it's incredibly trusting; the idea is that in a sudden absence of leaders and/or an authoritarian system everyone would form into close-knit tribal groups which would operate under their own ethics and moral code. Fair enough, but most of those close-knit tribal groups, lacking the centuries/millenia of carefully structured and followed social conventions that quote-unquote primitive groups have in place already, would be forced to start their own moral and ethical systems from scratch, which usually leads straight into Might Makes Right. Might Makes Right leads to unchecked violence. Following the collapse of a standing government everything lapses into chaos for an unspecified period in time, where mob rule and violence, random or otherwise, rules the day. (Have you covered the French Revolution yet in school?) It will take a long and bloody struggle for like-minded individuals to seek each other out and form their own coalitions,
and build up either a base of operations of sufficient secrecy that they have no fear of being discovered by violent groups, or a force of arms that they have no fear of attack of violent groups. Either way, a lot of people, many of them innocent and with no protectors, are going to die before this happens.
Voluntary anarchy, in which a group of people opt out of the society in which they live and starts their own in whatever safe haven they can find, is a little easier to make work, provided everyone involved is in agreement about every facet in the running of their world. Anarchy means the lack of a state, not necessarily the lack of a means of governance, so there would have to be some sort of agreed-on code of conduct amongst the members. People have tried this on the small scale throughout "modern" history with varying degrees of success; it very much depends on the people involved.

 
At 4:37 AM, Blogger Duamuteffe said...

General Reading List for people following the conversation:

T.H. White, 'The Once and Future King'

George Orwell, 'Animal Farm, ' '1984'

Jack London, 'The Iron Heel'

Yevgeny Zamyatin, 'We'

Aldous Huxley, 'Brave New World'

Kurt Vonnegut, 'Player Piano'

I was going to recommend A Clockwork Orange, but it's pretty heavy stuff, and some people get bogged down in the violence and miss the philosophy. So I'd give that a miss for a couple of years.

 
At 1:47 AM, Blogger Dagdamor said...

I've heard of several of those, and read at least one. back to philosophy, prompt anyone.

 
At 1:02 AM, Blogger Dagdamor said...

So much for Philosophy, guess we should warn Melissa to get out of the Theologean market:D

 

Post a Comment

<< Home