Anarchy?!?!?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

choff
Posts: 2390
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Anarchy?!?!?

Postby choff » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:00 am

CHoff

hanelyp
Posts: 2215
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Anarchy?!?!?

Postby hanelyp » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:41 am

Local self government.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

paperburn1
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Anarchy?!?!?

Postby paperburn1 » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:07 pm

I would consider it a fluid democracy more than a total anarchy ,
they elect groups to perform a task then when the task is done the group is dissolved to prevent anyone from forming a power base and becoming corrupted. They do have rule of law.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

kunkmiester
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Anarchy?!?!?

Postby kunkmiester » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:11 am

Anarchy is lack of government, not lack of law. Even without government basic laws of human nature still hold, and the slightly more advanced rules needed for a peaceful society dont need a government to enforce them.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Anarchy?!?!?

Postby Tom Ligon » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:51 pm

I think this is not anarchy, if the Wikipedia article is correct.

The new autonomous government is composed of councils elected directly by the people. This community administration is leading an effort to plant thousands of new trees. The community has since seen a crime rate of nearly zero. Following lengthy legal battles, the Mexican government is treating autonomous Cherán as a legal self-governing indigenous community.

This is direct democracy, and one of the best arguments for the Second Amendment I have ever seen.

Government by consensus is a common indigenous model. If you read Alvin Josephy's The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest you will see that is the way they worked. The "chief" was not a king, but a public servant. He might have inherited the position from his father, but that was because he apprenticed for the position. If he recommended the correct course of action, the tribe would follow. If he was wrong, they'd tell him so and pick someone else, or just ignore him. "Chief Joseph" is oft-quoted, mostly from statements he made before Congress. Many people have noticed how eloquent some Native American speakers were. This eloquence was necessary to their role in their societies. They had to argue well in order to achieve a consensus.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests