Quote:
Originally Posted by CarleyGee
Thank you for your opinion ^_^
I wasn't sure if anyone would take interest.
From Anarchopedia.com - Anarchy 101 Page
FIRST STATEMENT:
Well, if you donʼt elect officials to make the decisions, who does make them? You canʼt tell me that everybody can do as he personally pleases without regard for others.
Anarchists have many ideas about how decisions would be made in a truly voluntary and cooperative society. Most anarchists believe that such a society must be based on local communities small enough for people to know each other, or people at least would share ties of family, friendship, opinions or interests with almost everybody else. And because this is a local community, people also share common knowledge of their community and its environment. They know that they will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike politicians or bureaucrats, who decide for other people.
Anarchists believe that decisions should always be made at the smallest possible level. Every decision which individuals can make for themselves, without interfering with anybody elseʼs decisions for themselves, they should make for themselves. Every decision made in small groups (such as the family, religious congregations, co-workers, etc.) is again theirs to make as far as it doesnʼt interfere with others. Decisions with significant wider impact, if anyone is concerned about them, would go to an occasional face-to-face community assembly.
The community assembly, however, is not a legislature. No one is elected. Anyone may attend. People speak for themselves. But as they speak about specific issues, they are very aware that for them, winning is not, as it was for football coach Vince Lombardi, "the only thing." They want everyone to win. They value fellowship with their neighbors. They try, first, to reduce misunderstanding and clarify the issue. Often thatʼs enough to produce agreement. If thatʼs not enough, they work for a compromise. Very often they accomplish it. If not, the assembly may put off the issue, if itʼs something that doesnʼt require an immediate decision, so the entire community can reflect on and discuss the matter prior to another meeting. If that fails, the community will explore whether thereʼs a way the majority and minority can temporarily separate, each carrying out its preference.
If people still have irreconcilable differences about the issue, the minority has two choices. It can go along with the majority this time, because community harmony is more important than the issue. Maybe the majority can conciliate the minority with a decision about something else. If all else fails, and if the issue is so important to the minority, it may separate to form a separate community, just as various American states (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Maine, Utah, West Virginia, etc.) have done. If their secession isnʼt an argument against statism, then it isnʼt an argument against anarchy. Thatʼs not a failure for anarchy, because the new community will recreate anarchy.
Anarchy isnʼt a perfect system — itʼs just better than all the others.
|
That's the thing tho, the ideal is always nicer the the actual result lol. It looks good on paper, but is it realistic.
I don't trust human nature that much. Large communities of people working together with no leadership, all toward the greater good. I personally love the sound of it, but there are too many snakes in the grass, too many glory hounds, too many crazies wanting to "play God"; they ruin it for everyone. It's sad, disappointing, and I wish we lived in a society where greed doesn't gobble people up whole, but it seems we haven't evolved to the point of self-sufficient societies.
As for rural communities and tribes, they may lack a formal government system, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a form of government is toally absent. There may not be official laws and elected rulers in place, but there are wisemen, shamen, or the council of elders, etc. There's almost always a person or persons with some sort of standing within the community to which the people turn to or are advised by. It's not a monarchy or a democracy, but there are a few in place guiding the greater numbers in a cooperative collective effort, which is essentially what a government is.