Anarchy is constantly defined in different ways. I believe this is so because, as most political ideas, its complexities and subtleties are vast. One can always stretch them (political ideas) and attempt to use them to describe some ideas.
A slippery thing, that anarchy definition.
In my case, I understand it as "an attempt to organize a society in a way that it doesn't need a centralized authority". I used the whole planet as an example because (I believe) it proofs that we all live in a permanent state of anarchy.
And the millions who die because of wars and oppression each year argue against that as a desireable state on any level, don't you think?
The human society, taken as a whole, lacks a centralized authority. There are hundreds of government with their own interests, thousands of big transnational enterprises with deep pockets and particular interests, and the rest of the humanity in the middle. Almost no one speak for the people. Not some countrie's people. Just... the people.
Right, now you sound like every Marxist revolutionary ever who spoke for "the people", who somehow managed to kill millions of people in the process. Like Che Guevara, who sometimes had to slaughter whole villages of civilians for "the people" and is now a counter-culture icon.
Now, someone will point out that the world does not work (waste of natural resources, good food trashed because its cheaper to do it than to sell it below some price, overpopulation, pollution, wars for almost any reason you can think.. etc) and I agree. The world is in chaos, the management of natural and human resources is precarious, and depends almost entirely on the momentary interests of those governments and companies.
Natural resources tend to be better off when it is the government and businesses managing them. When "the people" manage them is when the wholesale rape of them occurs, see the
Congo charcoal trade for Exhibit A. Much the same happening in the Amazon rain forest.
I do believe a higher order is needed, but not in the form of a unified world government (some believe we are heading in to that direction). I would rather have a world ruled by teams of scientists. All the gathering and use of resources would go towards the goal of keeping humanity alive and well. Key concepts should change before anything like this becomes even possible, for example, I believe that the very concept of "property" should be revised.
"Ruled" by scientists? Sorry, I don't want my own country, let alone the world, ruled by anyone. Scientists sure as hell aren't immune from committing atrocities in the name of science, think Nazi doctos and the experiments Japanes scientists did to POWs in WWII. No thanks, I'll take elected officials accountable to the people and limited in their power.
I should write a post on the No True Scotsman fallacy, and probably send copies to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.N. for all of the abuse it has taken on this forum alone. I doubt you have the slightest clue what the this fallacy entails; indeed, I "get the sense" that you, like others here, resort to such terminology to imbue vaguely desperate arguments with some higher authority.
I know exactly what it entails. You keep ignoring Somalia, because taht's not the 'true" anarchy utopia you and your professor envision, nor will any other reeal-world examp0le fit the bill. it will always be some mythical form of anarchy that has never existed and will never exist, because there is no such viable animal.
Crucially the No True Scotsman fallacy involves an after the fact change in positions. Let me see if I can find an example from recent memory, hmmmmm... well, it's sort of like asking if there are any examples of an anarchist society that did not "end up like Somalia," receiving an indisputable answer, and then stipulating new conditions.
I never said you actually committed a NTS fallacy, I said you were going there. You will arrive there if and when you actually take a position. but like a 9/11 truther who makes no actual claims because then the claims can be easily refuted, you probably won't ever define any sort of anarch you prefer because as soon as you do it will be obvious to all observers that your version of anarchy leads to the same place - another Somalia.
It's not unheard of for human beings to respond to low-rent hyperbole with deadpan knowingness.
What's unheard of is any sort of anarchy actually working in the world as we have it today. It ends up like Somalia.
Fact is, most anarchists are spoiled brat only children who were used to getting their way if they only threw a long enough temper tantrum, and try to apply that strategy to the real world once they enter into it. See the window-smashing anarchists at the RNC for examples. "Wahhhh, waaaahhh, waahhhh, I want it my way or I'll break your windows, waaah, waaahhh..."
Just my opinion, of course.
But this is a forum to share ideas, even when they are just little fuffy clouds in the mind of an individual. At least, this is what I believe.
