Evenstay

during a recent trip into the woods i had a long talk with my friends about anarchy vs peace. most of my friends that i trip with are hippys and huge supporters of peace. I on the other hand came to the conclusion that peace is unatural. anarchy or chaos imo is more natural. trees out in the mountains seem to have random patterns of growth and they are all competing with each other.There is no order. there is no peacefull survival, just competition for survival. animals also live in a state of anrachy. Its every animal for them selves. survival of the fittest. Peace on the other hand is the opposite of nature. Peace and order are very close to the same thing and order would have trees planted in neat rows next to very orderly buildings and no competition. I came to the conclusion that its mans search for order and peace that is destroying nature. i just thought i'd throw that out there and try and get some oppinions on it.

troublemaker_42

I think your issues lies in equating peace with order. If you've spent any amount of time in the great outdoors, you have no doubt found peace watching the sun set over a lake, or waking up to see the world outside dusted with snow. I find myself most at peace while in nature. No, nature isn't orderly, but to deny its peacefulness is just silly to me. I escape to nature to leave the chaos of the human world behind. Nature, though sometimes harsh, sometimes violent, is far closer to "Utopia" than anything we as humans could ever create. OUr planet has survived drastic changes, and nature seems to keep adapting to whatever conditions are thrown at it. When I think of anarchy, I think of disorganization, chaos, no master plan, just generalized disorder. When I look at mother nature, I see the perfect balance of peace and violence, love and hate, weak and strong, etc....in short, nautre is almost perfect, while the worlds and conditions we create for ourselves couldn't be further from balanced. Humanity has created any anarchy on this planet. IMO, few things could be more balanced and yes, peaceful, than mother nature

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

dirtbomb

Anarchism, as a political idea doesn't embrace the idea of chaos.
It's Libertarianism without the need for the extra bells and whistles.

macphearsome

what's unnatural about order? Birds build nests, bees make fucking huge colonies with hexagonal pods to raise young in. A lot of creatures are highly social, and humans are in that category.

Humans create order but sometimes they fuck it up. It's not unnatural it's just another thing that happens.

__________________
"the only way to achieve certainty is to amputate inquiry"
Marvin Minsky

dinosaur avatar shamelessly lifted from dinosaur comics

Trocisp

Anarchy is not synonymous with Chaos, any more than Peace is synonymous with Governing.

Buzzby

Nature is extremely orderly. It's a self-correcting, self-organizing system with so much flexibility that it can survive just about anything. It adapts to use whatever resources are available. An event might kill off 90% of all existing species and within a few million years evolution will have created new species to fill all of the empty niches.

Competition is part of the system, one of the engines that powers evolution. It's the mechanism through which species are refined to more perfectly mesh with their environments. Competition and peace are not mutually exclusive. Forests grow to make the most efficient of available resources. Planting trees in rows and monocropping might look more "orderly" to a human, but would be far less efficient at utilizing the space, sunlight, water, and nutrients. Which is truely more orderly?

Things which appear to be chaotic often hide a deeper order.

__________________

KillerWeed420

Ah one of the secrets of life.
"Nature is extremely orderly. It's a self-correcting, self-organizing system with so much flexibility that it can survive just about anything."
Its all about tolerance(flexability) people. We have become, mainly through government intervention, a very intolerant race. If it isn't hurting anybody else butt the fuck out.
I'm sure we're all guilty of it from time to time. Go to a 7-11 have some mophead that can't speak the language and you get upset. Hey it his store, if you don't like it spend your money somewhere else.

Having said this though I think this country has been led down this path so far that probably anarchy is the only thing that is going to rebalance the scales.

troublemaker_42

And how do your propose a total breakdown in order, a complete collapse of all we know, of the "system" as we know it, going to right the wrongs in this country? While this country may not be perfect, I don't think we need an all-out cleansing of the system to make things work. Some people will always cling to anarchy as a better option othan the status quo, but I've yet to understand why. Anarchy would be a choas unmatched by anything we've yet encountered as US citizens. Imagine the LA Riots, if you can remember that far back.....now imagine that, except on a nationwide scale, prehaps WORLDWIDE, because if our system falls apart, it may very well have a domino effect on other powers worldwide. Survival of the fittest, every man for himself, etc......all decent enough sentiments, until you pause and actually think about it. I have an aunt in a wheelchair, grandparents in hospital care, etc....in an anarchnistic world, these people would be liabilities, a drain on supplies we could do without if it were every man wman and child for himself. You may think the inner good of poeple would prevent such occurances, but I don't have that faith. Anarchy is one of those things thats cool to ponder, but the reality would be a period of hell on earth....eventually, society would regroup, but at that point, who is to say that whatever system is developed would be superior to the one we have now? People are biog fans of change, without realizing some changes aren't always for the best.

Merry-juana

I say Anarchy is what we need to achieve peace (in the long term), so I go for both.
Sure at the beginning anarchy would cause destruction and chaos, but I am sad to say that it is necessary in the long term. I wouldn't want it to happen before my grandparents dies, since I love them too much, and I do not want them to get hurt. But, what would be good if we get anarchy slowly. So that freedom is given slowly, unlike what happened in South Africa with apartheid being removed before the masses was educated, and they didn't know how to handle it. What should happen is that first victimless crimes should not be crimes, like the smoking of Marijuana. Then, when people start to handle that, you can give them more freedom, and the system less control, untill we eventually the system and the people have the same power. Personally, I do not think total anarchy is to just suddenly given, but given slowly.

troublemaker_42

Anarchy isnm't defined as a slow dissolution of all law though. Anarchy, by the very nature of the word itself, cannot be controlled or dolled out in doses. How do you propose an "organized" destruction of the system as we know it? Anarchy isn't defined as the equalization of the people and their government. Its defined as, in the simplest of terms, as political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control. If you want anarchy, you cannot have it "regulated" by the government, because, by its very nature, anarchy means there IS NO government control of any kind. If you are going to argue in favor of anarchy, you must fully grasp what that emcompasses. As a civilization raised with the "system" few of us can begin to TRUELY comprehend what anarchy would actually entail. Imagine a world with no roads maintained, no education publically funded, no help for those who can't help themselves, no banking, no credit, no healthcare, no way of transporting goods from point A to point B, etc. Those who advocate anarchy have to be willing to sacrifice everything and anything they currently know. AS much as we like to bitch about "the system" and "the man keeping us down" few of us are prepared to handle a world without the man and without the system. Anarchy isn't something that one can "phase in", because anarchy, in its truest form, is an absence of any type of control.