You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: They Said "If You Want Anarchy, Go To Somalia" — So I Did
This was really great and eye-opening, so thank you! Regarding the question of "anarchy" - it seems like it just comes down to people having different definitions of the word. I, for one, am only familiar with the concept of anarchy that I've been taught through mainstream media.
I'm only recently starting to understand that that may not be the correct, or only, definition of it. I'd be interested to hear how you would explain what your idea of "anarchy" looks like @dollarvigilante.
I have participated in anarchist groups for a long time online. Anarchy is in essence 'no rulers' - which means no hierarchy too. Since violence is effectively a move to 'rule' others, anarchy is essentially entirely peaceful and the images of alleged anarchists being violent is not an image of real anarchy. Anarchy, in the pure sense, is the absolute opposite of monarchy/oligarchy and all other 'archies' so it is understandable that these artificial power structures have done everything they could do to smear the concept/term.
How do you deal with people who are violent and wish to 'rule' others in this type of situation? It would be great if everyone could just live and act peaceably with each other but unfortunately there always seem to be people who can't seem to do that.
The one main thing I would like from the government is to protect me from that violence. If I were to live in an anarchic society with no government, how would i be protected from people who would wish me harm for whatever reason?
I understand that I could hire protection - like they did in Somalia in the video - but what if I'm poor and can't afford that? Even if I can afford protection, I can still get shot from a distance or blown-up...what would happen in that situation to the person who shot/bombed me? Would there be no consequences for them?
This is a key question that many commenters do not answer in a useful way. The first observation to make, for me, is that governments have been responsible for arguably the most number of violent deaths in human history - so it is a bit misleading to think that governments protect us from violence. With that in mind, we can perhaps more fairly appraise the validity of real anarchy. I don't think of anarchy as a situation where there needs to be means of protecting against violence, since as soon as violent 'ruling' appears, there is no anarchy. That is not a 'cop out', it is just a fact. So how then to maintain anarchy in a world of would-be rulers?
Whether there is a government or not, the way to non violence requires a balance that itself must start in the heart of all involved. This means that we need to put great emphasis on personal responsibility to understand and learn how to heal, balance and evolve. Every violent act requires a decision to override free will and to act without compassion, so a very strong and reliable focus on bringing awareness to the dynamics involved, which includes an unprecedented collective and new found respect for free will is necessary. The Ubuntu movement out of South Africa is one practical approach which gives good examples of how peace is increased once local agreements are reached to work together in harmony to produce for the needs of the community, it's worth researching.
In cases where there are simply people who are so 'evil' and heartless that no matter what everyone else does, they still try to violently control others, it is not wrong to defend self, but by doing this in an enlightened way, the seeds of future violence are reduced in strength and may eventually cease to be. 'randomly' dropping bombs from robots is pretty much the complete opposite of enlightened defense.
Thanks @ura-soul - this was a great answer. I was in no way implying that I think existing governments do a good job of protecting their constituents or preventing violence. I feel quite the opposite (it's hard not to) which is why i'm so interested in other options.
I love the idea behind this concept of anarchy now that I understand it...I might need to re-read the book Atlas Shrugged now.
You are welcome! I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but having spoken to people who love it, I don't feel attracted to it as their positions usually feel to deny important aspects of reality - there are also stories of Aynd Rand being a girlfriend of one of the Rothschild family, as I recall. In any case, I think authors like @larkenrose might be more capable of filling in gaps in understanding on these topics... Plus he can join in on Steemit too :)
the challenge is essentially an organisation problem. In small groups where we know each other we live without hierarchies. But scale it up to millions of people and the trust is lost and hierarchical systems thrive. The big hope is that blockchain can solve this organisation problem and make non-violent cooperation in the millions possible.
It is possible to be connected through conscious connection to our world itself and shared understanding. The internet is a technological reflection of our own internal state of being and it is through evolving our state of being that we can best help others to do the same and to bring us all to a state of overall harmony.