[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 2 per post.

Check out our friends over at: /imgbc/ - Imageboard Culture, /adv/ - Advice, /burgers/ - Hamburgers, and /doc/ - Documentaries

File: 1428004298990.jpg (1.01 MB, 1549x1181, 1549:1181, Hobbes-Leviathan.jpg)

021c01 No.1291

We all live in societies which are governed by some form of authorative bodies. These bodies, in turn, enact (or attempt to enact) regulations by which to coexist in "relative" harmony, and subsequently bear (or attempt to bear) the structural power needed to uphold these regulations. Some thinkers describe the theoretical origins of this construct by the title of a "social contract".

What, in your opinion, would a world without this governance be like? Good or bad? And would it be possible? And if so how?

3869d8 No.1292

>>1291
try to understand that their will always be a big monkey putting all the other monkeys in place

9680d1 No.1295

There is no such thing as a word without governance.

0639b2 No.1297

>>1295
Quality Banter™ only on /phil/

9680d1 No.1298

>>1297
>>1297
Instead of shit posting you could try and prove why you think otherwise.

You don't even know what the "world" is so how can you know what its governance is?

0639b2 No.1299

>>1298
>You don't even know what the "world" is so how can you know what its governance is?
And I'm the one shitposting.
>Prove why you think otherwise
How would I go about that if I didn't not couldn't know what the world is?

58caf8 No.1300

>>1291
This is actually an important question OP, and one I'd like very much to know the answer to. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough to give a satisfactory answer. But in my current mixed state of philosophical knowledge and ignorance, that would depend on your definition of "governance".

To me, it seems there will always be some forms of governance over others. Though their degrees and methods of governance may vary. I can't go to the neighborhood police department and tell them my dealer ripped me off; however I can tell other buyer's that this guy's a charlatan, and as a consequence he will lose customers.

I think it's tricky to make an argument one way or another because it would ultimately be reduced to a semantical debate over what is meant by "governance", "government" and likely, "hierarchy".

I've spent a lot of time toying around with anarchist philosophy. (Yes, even the obscure "adjective" anarchist philosophies. This may have you picture me as an annoying hipster but I'm far from it.)

>>1295
So I guess I'd have to agree with this guy. But I don't know. I could be stupid, nobody tells me these things.

0639b2 No.1304

>>1300
>I'd like very much to know the answer to
>Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough to give a satisfactory answer.

How on Earth could you expect to understand an 'Answer' if you haven't the basic 'knowledge' requisite you suppose to apprehend it in the first place?
>to a semantical debate over what is meant by "governance", "government" and likely, "hierarchy".
So like every other 'debate' and argument in existence.

>I've spent a lot of time toying around with anarchist philosophy
Okay.
>(Yes
There was a question?
>even the obscure "adjective" anarchist philosophies.
What does this actually mean?
>This may have you picture me as an annoying hipster but I'm far from it.)
Senile is more how it went.

>>1295
>>1298
>There is no such thing as a word without governance.
Why? Please use an adequate description in your explanation and answer the question appropriately. (Marks will be deducted for poorly formulated or insincere responses)

3e6cc7 No.1345

File: 1428377168739.webm (5.43 MB, 488x272, 61:34, This is how we fight.webm)

>>1291
>We all live in societies which are governed by some form of authorative bodies. These bodies, in turn, enact (or attempt to enact) regulations by which to coexist in "relative" harmony, and subsequently bear (or attempt to bear) the structural power needed to uphold these regulations. Some thinkers describe the theoretical origins of this construct by the title of a "social contract".

>What, in your opinion, would a world without this governance be like? Good or bad? And would it be possible? And if so how?

Assuming a world with out government is anarchy.

First look at the what the world has to offer us in terms of this. Africa has countries with no government and it's a shithole. Africans are also more prone to making their countries, communities, neighborhoods shit as well.

Europeans have had anarchist societies that functioned well, let's take the Boers of South Africa for example. What made them function like this. British governmental oppression, very harsh environment, clear external dangers, lions, tribes etc. So even if there was no government working together for gave them the best chance of survival on their great "trek" from British governed Cape colony. Camaraderie and Brotherhood was needed, there is know way of knowing if this would have kept on with later generations if there was no more clear external dangers with people forgetting why it was needed.

I don't know enough about the Chinese and the Boers were only living under a functioning Anarchistic society for two generations before the English started a war with them to reclaim their colony. As soon as the English made war a localization of power took place under Paul Kruger and a make shift government was created.

So a need for government creates a government. If the external danger becomes enough, a government is a survival tool. Like most tools a created one.

So assuming government is a survival tool against external danger, different races have different track records there is still one questions that needs to be answered is man inherently good or evil? If man is good there would be no need for government because like the Boer humans would be protecting themselves from external treats and not other humans and no centralization of power is needed to fight of cold weather or lions. You need warm clothes or a gun/spear. Other men banding together though trying to take your land/gold/woman/food/water/gameboy can only be defended by other men banding together to protect a common interest.

So whats my opinion?

If these conditions are met maybe.
>External treats are just enough to keep people aware of a common hardship/goal but not enough to force centralization of power.
>If it's a European society.
>If man is good or at least most men while still being capable of handling evil men's actions on their own, while evil men do not gain support from other men.
>Somewhat isolated from outsiders and a clear definable in group.

The strong shall survive I like the idea of it and I could go into more detail about what I think would make this possible but I am limited in characters. That being said I think its too idealistic and supposes to many things to work.


I will be waiting for the guys screaming back 2 >>>/pol/.

47e74b No.1355

No pure state of anarchy can ever be maintained, because the first strongman who groups together enough power or followers or control over resources becomes the de facto ruler.

No pure state of anarchy has ever or will ever exist in this world, at least not for long, because governments always win. They always have, they currently do, they always will. 2 is greater than 1, and this will never change.

On the glorious day that the people rise up and overthrow the evil government, they'll quickly be faced with the problem of what to do after. And guess what works?

Unless you all want to go back to the Savannah and the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the largest form of societal organization that anarchy can possibly support, and under those conditions you will still be powerless the moment anyone around you chooses to collectivize.

7a2b78 No.1356

>>1355
what are your thoughts on the former White Territory in eastern Ukraine?

0639b2 No.1360

>>1355
>No pure state of anarchy
Why are you qualifying a mode of existential being with an adverbial? The proceeding logic:
>can ever be maintained, because the first strongman who groups together enough power or followers or control over resources becomes the de facto ruler.
is immediately defunct.

>No pure state of anarchy has ever or will ever exist in this world
Because there's no such thing
>because governments always win.
Are you arguing that without 'governments' (what do you mean by this) anarchy exists because of a lack of presence of a particular form of order - or order total?

401813 No.1366

>>1291
We tried that. That's why we need governance. You are confusing governance with authoritarianism. Please stop reading stupid libertarian propaganda and understand this; you need a certain level of governance to ensure liberties. No governance always end up in complete tyranny (I dare you to prove me wrong on this).

As the Social Contract and many other work on the subject mention the real divide is not Governance/Non-Governance, it's Democracy/Oligarchy/Tyranny (the greek division), or Republic/Monarchy/Tyranny (the Renaissance division).

I understand here that you want more civic liberties and you want less government intervention in your private business. First of all, the question you need to ask yourself is
>Is what is good for me good for the whole
And if you believe that yes, or if you do not care you need to obtain some power to govern yourself. This can be achieved in many ways but assuming you are not already rich and powerful the best way for you to do this is whether by forcing yourself into the world of the powerful (which is achieved by networking and wits) or reversing the paradigm of power and instituting a True Democracy (which is achieved - like any revolutionary act - through bringing competitive forces into a state of cooperation (good luck with that) and re-appropriation of the legal and economical aspects of your country.

401813 No.1367

>>1360
>Are you arguing that without 'governments' (what do you mean by this) anarchy exists because of a lack of presence of a particular form of order - or order total?
Anarchy
An (without) - archy (ruler, leader)

8236dd No.1523

The best sort of governance is by the self, as it is the most efficient, and actually makes the individual a moral person, rather than making them act moral out of fear. However, for the full measure of this will only be attainable with the technological singularity, when we merge with machines, so for now we will have to make do with a sort of hybrid government, where the individual controls themselves to a certain extent, but performs other moral actions, especially the complex ones necessary for civilization to exist, at least partially out of fear for the consequences of failure to do so.


7715f0 No.1526

a world without governance is like a body without white blood cells.


49a074 No.1530

>>1526

Nonetheless, many creatures manage to get along just fine without them.


3bea2e No.1531

>>1530

Such as? Many animals have distributed neural networks with independent motor controls, however, there are no creatures that do not have a central control aparatus that are worth comparing to human beings. Do you want humans to be just retarded bacteria? Because if that's what you prefer as your metaphor, kek.


8236dd No.1532

>>1531

>white blood cells

>neural networks

>stick with one metaphor, cancer


0ad31b No.1586

It maybe could work if we had several generations of transitional eugenics


fb7834 No.1592

There's an important distinction between a *stateless * society and a *leaderless* or *government-less* society, and it's one I think most anarchists miss. Tribal communities or the anarcho-syndicalism aren't "anarchist" and are only separate from modern nation-states by a difference of degree, not of kind.


0ad31b No.1593

>>1592

This. Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) wrote the following critique in which he showed how many anarchists and anthropologists exaggerated and even outright lied about the social equality present in primitive societies:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

He shows that class and discrimination pre-empt class-inducing material economy, and that the only argument you could perhaps make is that class-based economies throw fuel onto the fire.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]