- There is no leader in an anarchy. That's pretty much the definition of it. No governance, therefor no leader. Attempted leaders, yes, but they are simply attempted leaders. If there is a leader, it is not anarchy. Your response fundamentally doesn't make any sense. Please rephrase your intent in a way that does.
- Again, there is no one in charge in an anarchy. If there is, it is no longer an anarchy and is instead a form of government. I don't see why you're trying to argue against a factor of anarchy as if anarchy is a governmental system, when it's the lack thereof. You may as well be saying that atheists gather around a priest of some sort to learn the tenets of not having a religion. It doesn't make any sense.
I'm sorry but you seem to have the wrong misconception that if in the start there is anarchy, it will go on as so. But as seen by human history all the way from the beginning, they always have someone in the lead, a leader. Now, I was hypothesizing how that leader got into a position of power and I said the most likely scenario was using hired guns, armed personnel to get every common folk in order under him. And that's the most primitive way, gain the leadership through a showcasing of your powers and capabilities. But now, that leader could as well be a tyrant. So in the end, anarchy will never stay, there will always from governing systems.
Potentially, yes, tyranny would form. Equally possible would be democracy, or socialism, or a as of yet uncreated government system. That governments might form is not an argument against anarchy, because it is self-defeating. If governments forming is a bad thing, then governments existing is equally bad, and therefor anarchy is only an even better option. Again, you don't seem to understand the definition of anarchy. You also seem to have some notion that the world is reminiscent of a pyramid in the structure of life. This is not the case. At best, you're confusing anarchy and meritocracy. At worst, you are confusing anarchy with something that not only doesn't exist but is based on non-existent factors. You mention of armed forces implies that you are confusing anarchy with stratocracy.
I'm not confusing anything.
Governing systems would definitely form. And most of them would be tyranny, one ultimate leader. Isn't that the way of nature? The strongest rises above all others?
We are absolutely animals. Not only is that a scientific fact, but to think otherwise requires absurd hubris and itself is a result of being an animals. Further, insects are animals as well. And lastly, none of what you said addresses what I said. Natural selection is not just about procreation. Natural selection is the process through which evolution happens, it is not interchangeable with it. And yes, it would take a long period of time for humans to evolve through natural selection. What's your point? What about that is in any way a point against anarchy? I don't see a connection there. If you're saying that the time frame means that we currently would not gain anything from it, so what? I didn't say it as something that would benefit us personally if anarchy was suddenly the situation. It's something that would benefit the species long term majorly and short term minorly.
My bad, I can't seem to stick with only using the words for their dictionary meaning. We are animals but we are above every other creature on the planet and as so you can't compare how they live to how we live and the systems we have developed.
My point with this was to make clear that evolution through natural selection is old, primitive, takes a lot of time. Evolution through science on the other hand, freely being able to change the traits that you leave to the next generation is the next step. Even just focusing on cybernetic enhancements to improve the human as a whole is a better way compared to the age long process of evolution through natural selection. And how would it benefit the species long term? As far as we have gone, as humans, it is not just about surviving or procreating anymore, it is about improvement and exploration of the unknown. You type about a world where surviving and evolution through natural selection are all humans need like some common non sentient animal with only those prime directives forged into its DNA.
I really don't know where you got this idea that anarchy has a leader, but to ignore that factor... The death penalty is nothing like what happens in an anarchistic environment. The death penalty requires certain social systems that can only exist with a government system of some sort. In anarchy, if someone kills someone, those close to the victim will likely seek revenge. Murderers are not beneficial to the survival of a group, which is why nearly every species drives them out or outright kills them once they are discovered.
Yeah, small scale wars between formed communities and clans. Great way of killing off most of the population. You don't know the shit that people would start a war about, especially when it's between families in a place where there is no governing system to set matters straight. That other person also has people, it is a never ending cycle unless you kill all of their clan to end it.
We are already suffering the results of overpopulation. There are land shortages, there are food shortages, medicine and resource shortages across the planet. Overpopulation is one of the leading causes for the actions that led to climate change and the extinction of many species due to environmental change. To say that current generations wouldn't be affected by the consequences of overpopulation is to show a lack of understanding of the world as it already is. And before David says so, yes, we could solve the food shortage if humanity as a whole decided to, but the fact that humanity uses a capitalistic system makes that supremely unlikely as there is no economic incentive to solve it.
I entirely agree with that. I, again, didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that, for the current generation, for those people who aren't suffering the blunt end of this phenomena, like you(i presume?) and me, how does it drastically affect our daily lives? For city folk, how does it affect their daily job, when they meet with friends, when they go to a movie? Why should they care if it doesn't affect them when they obviously don't care about the next generation? The earth is suffering, humanity as a whole is suffering but most individuals who aren't, don't give a rat's arse. That's what I meant by "current generation".
- Currency has no set value. No moreso than anything else does. You subjectively believe that an once of water is worth a certain amount of currency. Others can just as easily view it as worth a different amount. This is no different than if you removed currency from the equation. Further, currency is imaginary. It has no use, so no inherent value to derive a subjective "worth" from. Currency does not actually exist, it is purely conceptual, which is how the entirety of humanity has managed to become indebted to a nonexistent "other" using value that never had any basis.
What's the point of establishing that it doesn't exist? It makes transaction of objects between people easier. If everything has a fixed value, even if that value is abstract and doesn't exist, it makes trading a lot more efficient. And even without it, if you were to trade without currency, the comparison of values between 2 objects for trade would be subjective. So in the end it is the same but with currency that object has a price tag on it showing exactly how much the owner values it out front. However you look at it, currency is the most practical solution.
-This is a non-issue. You are confusing knowledge with intelligence. Learning capability, not learned facts. Reasoning and problem solving. People unable to learn are the "stupid" people of the world. People who ignore or reject facts and the common reality around them cannot survive without certain social structures in place to care for them. Moreover, there is no such thing as a one of a kind genius. Eventually, the same thing will be achieved by someone else, or a group of someone elses. There is no major loss to the species if someone who is not intelligent but can excel in a single field dies. The damage is temporary if it exists at all.
- That depends entirely on what social structures inevitably arise in a given location. Most technological advancement does not require the immense number of resources that military technological advancement does. Medical, perhaps, but not technological.
In anarchy no, there isn't. An autistic person who is extraordinary on a certain field of science, that person has no place in anarchy.
And you can't argue that
research on every single field whatever it may be would be severely hindered. People are divided into numerous small factions. In a nation, you have the greatest minds come together to research that field, how would that work in anarchy?
- That's incorrect. Currently, humanity will go extinct within less than a millennium. Perhaps less than a century. Long before it manages to get off this planet. Further, you completely ignored what I said. I said that anarchy's nature has no negative baggage that every governmental system to date has. However, there is baggage from nature itself being reintroduced. I specified this. You ignored it. That is irritating.
I didn't ignore it. I just said that nature itself would be irrelevant if we reach a certain point in our evolution through science. Basically "cheating nature" to skip a step.
And if we happen to go extinct by our own hands, then we probably wouldn't deserve to exist at all. No matter how you look at it, if people would want to change something, you can forget the laws and governing systems, they would get that change. But the most you get are some people gathered in a protest while the others basically don't give 2 shits about the future.
You might say"why should humanity, the good part of it, the talented people, suffer because of most humans not caring and being mindless?"
"Well why should humanity be saved just because of that small percentage of people when most are brainless baboons?"
