Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Exactly why it's not worth getting too involved with one idea. At the end of the day, just about any individual in Australia can get a basic job and have a comfortable life. I may not agree with every law, every policy and where each one of my tax dollars will go to, but it works better than the other systems which have been tried elsewhere. I think people need some anarchy spirit to keep the system on it's toes, but most people just don't care enough.
Anarchism isn't against all forms of leadership, just institutionalized leadership/authority.
Right. As I said though, I don't think it's really feasible. Especially on a large scale.
What I mean by this is that if Joe is a good shoemaker, it's obvious to elect him to be the leader of shoemaking operations. But this is due to his ability, and he can be recalled by the community that elected him at any time.
Problem is though people are prone to acting out of emotion. Say Joe's done a good job at running shoemaking operations, but it comes to light that he's been having an affair with his secretary. The people are shocked, outraged even, and decide to recall him from office over something that has nothing to do with his performance. Conversely people may elect to keep an effective person in their position because he knows how to appeal to their emotions.
I think what I would prefer, ideally, is perhaps a system of institutions much like we have now, but with limited periods of service. Example: instead of a President having two 4 year terms instead they get one 5 year term. No more, no less. That way a person will focus on getting stuff done rather than spending their first term trying to appease everyone in hopes of getting re-elected.
paring power blocks is the anarchist's gravity slough
to me, anarchism is not about one one thing or another, anarchism is a lot of different things. anarchism has a lot of different schools of thought just like buddhism. there is individual anarchism, which i would consider myself, which is when the individual i would say embodies an anarchist society within themself and practices anarchism through a specific lifestyle. this can take many forms. simply defying social mores, to me, is anarchism. free-cycling, is another simple anarchist practice. this is when certain DIY centres receive donations of random things ( a lot of clothes, shoes, old toys, books, junky objects (though junk = treasure) ) , then gives those things away for free. there's an info shop here in portland that does that called the black rose collective. that is anarchism. whether or not there are governments in power and people enslaved to their egos and their own internal government, anarchists will always exist, and thus anarchist societies.. even if they are just small groups of people. anarchism is alive and well inside this capitalist world, they are just highly outnumbered. however, that will be changing within the next dozen or so years. just ye wait!!
Exactly why it's not worth getting too involved with one idea. At the end of the day, just about any individual in Australia can get a basic job and have a comfortable life. I may not agree with every law, every policy and where each one of my tax dollars will go to, but it works better than the other systems which have been tried elsewhere. I think people need some anarchy spirit to keep the system on it's toes, but most people just don't care enough.
Yeah there are many times when I just get sick of the politics thing. It's a lot easier to live without thinking about all the problems associated with it.
Right. As I said though, I don't think it's really feasible. Especially on a large scale.
I believe that it is only really feasible with better and equally distributed technology, but I won't get into details since we are seeming to be at a crossroads.
Problem is though people are prone to acting out of emotion. Say Joe's done a good job at running shoemaking operations, but it comes to light that he's been having an affair with his secretary. The people are shocked, outraged even, and decide to recall him from office over something that has nothing to do with his performance. Conversely people may elect to keep an effective person in their position because he knows how to appeal to their emotions.
That is possible, but I doubt that a future society that is based on egalitarian, libertarian (not "big L" libertarian, notice) ideals will be scandalized by trivial tabloid items like that.
I do understand where you're coming from though.
I think what I would prefer, ideally, is perhaps a system of institutions much like we have now, but with limited periods of service. Example: instead of a President having two 4 year terms instead they get one 5 year term. No more, no less. That way a person will focus on getting stuff done rather than spending their first term trying to appease everyone in hopes of getting re-elected.
Yes that is a good idea for the time being, although I think even dividing larger countries into smaller blocs with similar term restrictions would be more efficient, rather than having this single party/leader that has a certain number of years to fix the whole freakin' country.
Comments
Exactly why it's not worth getting too involved with one idea. At the end of the day, just about any individual in Australia can get a basic job and have a comfortable life. I may not agree with every law, every policy and where each one of my tax dollars will go to, but it works better than the other systems which have been tried elsewhere. I think people need some anarchy spirit to keep the system on it's toes, but most people just don't care enough.
Right. As I said though, I don't think it's really feasible. Especially on a large scale.
Problem is though people are prone to acting out of emotion. Say Joe's done a good job at running shoemaking operations, but it comes to light that he's been having an affair with his secretary. The people are shocked, outraged even, and decide to recall him from office over something that has nothing to do with his performance. Conversely people may elect to keep an effective person in their position because he knows how to appeal to their emotions.
I think what I would prefer, ideally, is perhaps a system of institutions much like we have now, but with limited periods of service. Example: instead of a President having two 4 year terms instead they get one 5 year term. No more, no less. That way a person will focus on getting stuff done rather than spending their first term trying to appease everyone in hopes of getting re-elected.
to me, anarchism is not about one one thing or another, anarchism is a lot of different things. anarchism has a lot of different schools of thought just like buddhism. there is individual anarchism, which i would consider myself, which is when the individual i would say embodies an anarchist society within themself and practices anarchism through a specific lifestyle. this can take many forms. simply defying social mores, to me, is anarchism. free-cycling, is another simple anarchist practice. this is when certain DIY centres receive donations of random things ( a lot of clothes, shoes, old toys, books, junky objects (though junk = treasure) ) , then gives those things away for free. there's an info shop here in portland that does that called the black rose collective. that is anarchism. whether or not there are governments in power and people enslaved to their egos and their own internal government, anarchists will always exist, and thus anarchist societies.. even if they are just small groups of people. anarchism is alive and well inside this capitalist world, they are just highly outnumbered. however, that will be changing within the next dozen or so years. just ye wait!!
Yeah there are many times when I just get sick of the politics thing. It's a lot easier to live without thinking about all the problems associated with it.
I believe that it is only really feasible with better and equally distributed technology, but I won't get into details since we are seeming to be at a crossroads.
That is possible, but I doubt that a future society that is based on egalitarian, libertarian (not "big L" libertarian, notice) ideals will be scandalized by trivial tabloid items like that.
I do understand where you're coming from though.
Yes that is a good idea for the time being, although I think even dividing larger countries into smaller blocs with similar term restrictions would be more efficient, rather than having this single party/leader that has a certain number of years to fix the whole freakin' country.