On Anarchy

If we are talking about hunter gatherers, as opposed to larger societies that have built a more complex means to sustain a population against raiders, or other civilizations.

The matriarchy is probably the gold standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy ... stribution

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal.[53][54][55]

Yet it lists a good handful, and lets face it, anthropologists are not typically privileged to see 10,000 - 50,000 years into the past with any social hierarchy accuracies.

Once the male ego senses a place, or the NPD gets a taste of what muscle power is worth, well, people are people, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPCMJWqrh78

first,
i thought:
the advent of the iron age
made the elongation of the male sex
unavoidable
and its main aim
the penetration
the knife, the sword, the spear
second,
i thought:
gunpowder, firearms
the main aim shifted
to ejaculation
and - bombs:
the mystification of the orgasm
third,
i think:
simulation
through screen or helmet
makes this
pornography

Strategies Against Architecture III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies ... ecture_III

(it's pretty okay music if you are able to get into that stuff)

See my sig.

Well, if we are going to talk ancient hunter gatherers. There are few rewards that are considered the ultimate, and that is child rearing and sex.

These are the most ancient of all statues found to date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

Most of them date from the Gravettian period (22,000–28,000 years ago), but examples exist as early as the Venus of Hohle Fels, which dates back at least 35,000 years to the Aurignacian, and as late as the Venus of Monruz, from about 11,000 years ago in the Magdalenian.

An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth in a hunter gatherer society, means people kill each other.

When we look at that statues in Rome or Greece, we see the male vanity most certainly dominates. That's probably due to the muscle power that is involved in politicking. Even to this day, men everywhere are buying lifts in their shoes, because it will earn them the advantage at a subconscious level.

Put two lions at each other, and they won't fight, because they will injure and maim each other. However, if you put a tigress into the equation, well, then you've got a fight.

When structure dominates, nobody is losing any teeth, it's the law. Fear mongering does work, so, what can you do about it? Not too much.

Hey if you were me, and you lived in the most violent parts of town, you'd know, the news is a horror show. Nowhere near the every day reality we face.

Anarchy would never ######6 work.

StrideR780 wrote:Anarchy would never ######6 work.

It does. It is the natural order of things.

However you are right, we opt for the democracy in most cases.

Germany and Brazil, are they the only ones with Female presidents or what?


Hey Stride. Ever wonder if can't, don't and won't are a little different for a reason?

Perhaps you feel it wouldn't work, because your will is not where you believe it can compete?

Anarchy can work and it does work, but there are casualties, most certainly. Thus we have democracies, and socialism.

MrSigma wrote:

StrideR780 wrote:Anarchy would never ######6 work.

It does. It is the natural order of things.

However you are right, we opt for the democracy in most cases.

Germany and Brazil, are they the only ones with Female presidents or what?

While Dilma Roussett is President of Brazil, Angela Merkel is Chancellor of Germany - the equivalent of Prime Minister - and not President.

The first female President was Vigdis Finnbogdóttir, who was President of Iceland from 1980 - 1996, and let's not forget Mary Robinson, President of Ireland from 1990 - 1997.

Notable female Prime Ministers include Golda Meir of Israel, Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark, Indira Gandhi of India, Gro Harlem Brundtland & Erna Solberg of Norway, Julia Gillard of Australia, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, and Margaret cough spit Thatcher of the UK.

MrSigma wrote:

StrideR780 wrote:Anarchy would never ######6 work.

It does. It is the natural order of things.

However you are right, we opt for the democracy in most cases.

Perhaps you feel it wouldn't work, because your will is not where you believe it can compete?

Anarchy can work and it does work, but there are casualties, most certainly. Thus we have democracies, and socialism.

Mmmmmm

Arguably the Netherlands has been running as an organised anarchy for years, and let us not forget that Belgium successfully existed without a government for 541 days......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725277

Anarchy (the man made construct) only works within some form of bigger economic system that also has enforceable laws. It's always anarcho-something, it would never work as a stand alone system. People appear to feel safer when it seems like they have some form of understanding about how others are allowed to act. I agree with MrKap that anarchy, the natural phenomena, is always present no matter what economic and legal system is in practice. There's nothing but potential consequences stopping anyone from doing what they want anyway.

Chomsky on the Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism

Bertrand Russell on Proposed Roads to Freedom

Kropotkin and the History of Anarchism

seeminglyplain wrote:There's nothing but potential consequences stopping anyone from doing what they want anyway.

That is the ultimate goal of Autonomy. Mutual respect and understanding.

In a world where we are institutionalized, we forgo, or surrender our natural path of maturity.