h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's not a bad idea, if a little naive. However, I think some sort of government is always necessary, otherwise the strong simply dominate and the weak have nothing to organise themselves to prevent this. There are numerous examples of how this happens everywhere from the corporate boardroom to a "lawless" society like Somalia.

I also think this type of Anarchism is an excuse for not voting and not doing anything except inneffectual protesting and pointless rioting. It doesn't advance the cause of personal freedom, in fact it shrinks it as it allows the reactionary majority to further crack-down on "fringe" groups and peoples.

A lot of my thinking and outlook is fairly anarchistic but I know the limits of personal freedom in the real world. I vote when I have an opinion (because that way I can change things) and I'll assist the State if it's aims are the same as mine.

I'd take this a bit further.

The problem with a totally decentralised world is humanity. It seems, and lets face it, it's always been a problem, that humans NEED a centre to their lives. It's a rare person who is a totally commited atheist after all. Without a govenment to 'Believe' in, people tend to regress to an earlier level of social behaviour, a rather 'What's mine is mine and don't touch' vs 'What's yours I want' world. This is not good.

Christianity states that the meek shall inherit the world, but without any constraints, the meek would, in all likelyhood, inherit nothing and lose what little they have to the agressive and strong.

I read somewhere that it only takes a small percentage of non-altruists to wreck a stable system (I think it's in The Selfish Gene). Given the advanced state of selfishness delivered by our pseudo-capitalist society, we'ed be in for a sorry time.

So, in general, nice idea, shame about the species.

And how is this different from the current situation, where the rich dominate, and the poor get screwed? (sometimes metaphorically, sometimes literally)

The power gap between a billionaire and someone in the hands of the loan-sharks is considerably larger than what could possibly exist between any two people in a democratic anarchy.

That would change pretty quickly as the stronger of the "two people" gets more people on his side and replaces the "democratic anarchy" with his own personal tyranny.

Tyranny and corruption exists because people are stupid and let it happen. Until that changes, nothing is going to be ideal.

But the supposition for democratic anarchy is that the people have chosen, democratically, to not let it happen. One can only speculate about their stupidity, of course.

As much as criticism (of the constructive kind) is appreciated, I would also appreciate it Zagreb if you would actually read the article. If you had done so you would have found that one of the points I have made within is that due to human nature at the moment this kind of society cannot be achieved. However this is a depiction of how society could (and should) one day be. We can, after all but hope.

Thank you Lucinda for fighting on my behalf and I'm glad some people are seeing things from my perspective (we will have to talk some time). Oh and good point over on the war communism entry whaddya call it.

Fair enough, but you have tried to suggest that even though such a society is not currently possible, we should act as though it is and not participate in the one we have. That's ludicrous.

Why should someone go along with something that they don't believe is right? Isn't the best idea to stand up for your own beliefs? If everybody just accepted what they already had we'd still be hanging around in caves.

I do actaully agree with some of your points Zagreb but I feel that finding a middle ground is probably the way forward.

Oops, I just unsubscribed.