RE: Anarchy Is Not What They Made You Believe [VIDEO]
Absolutely. The dirty secret that Anarchists don't like to talk or think about is that everyone is free to participate in anarchy right now. Of course if you start going around and doing whatever, you will find that a larger group will immediately provide consequences. Of course anarchy will always be surrounded by or embedded in other, larger groups because it lacks the ability to form the strong collaborative agreements that are necessary to coordinate larger groups. In fact, it is primarily opposed to rules (which are a form of structured agreement).
Anarchy fails on so many levels and in so many specific ways that it really isn't even an ideology any more than 'rebelling' or 'resisting' is an ideology. It is a one dimensional cartoon of an ideology designed to appeal to emotion and intellectually lazy people. I place anarchists at the same reasoning level as flat-earthers. Both movements are prime examples of psy-ops pushed by the same group ultimately for the same reasons.
I think the ideology of Anarchy is quite nice actually.
We humans need ideas/ideologies to work towards, even impractical unattainable ones.
My understanding of the ideologies are simplified thus:
All ideologies have weak spots naturally, but that is why they are called IDEologies, and not REALologies.
Always working towards ideologies are more important than the ideologies themselves I believe, because when we stop caring we hand all decisions over to those that have no vision for society save control, and that is how one end up living in an authoritarian state.
Optimism is a positive force for sure. Ideals are important. People should work toward ideals. Good and evil are ideals..
Your descriptions of those ideologies are close to how I would describe them if I were trying to sell them. I don't consider the happiest bumper-stickers that I can make for ideas to be very useful when exploring or comparing them.
As an engineer, I do begin with a positive criteria list but the vast majority of time is spent on negative criteria because they represent the problems to solve before the positive criteria can be implemented. To get past the first step of considering something like anarchy the detail of the ideas used to express it needs to be increased and an articulate list of negative factors needs to be generated.
Utopia: "The ideology of the happy human"
Well yes I did put a positive sticker on all the ideologies, because it is the positive aspect people work towards. That is the whole point of ideals.
Nobody sets out to work toward anything negative.
However as I said all ideologies have weak spots, and one all share is psychopaths.
A psychopath will worm his way into any society and take advantage for himself/herself to the detriment of everyone else.
The ideologies I mention might all end up failing thusly:
Human nature prevents us from having a fair society.
Jake the dog (adventure time) has a cute cartoon that sums it up nicely:
Likely, for the best chance of fairness we need the presence all ideologies supporting/competing with each other, and people being educated enough to switch between them at need.
A sort of free marked of ideologies if you will.
I agree. That is all vaguely correct.
Some additional evolutionary considerations to explore:
Psychopaths:
*Psychopaths tend to occupy upper hierarchies because they have evolved for it. Applying anthropomorphic instincts to direct groups/super-organisms is a poorly fitting heuristic. Psychopaths lack many of those limbic instincts and out-compete those that don't because it frees them to conform to the factors of that system better.
Collectivists:
*History is an enormous catalog of events that partition the evolution space into 3 groups. Dominating, submitting and resisting. It is a Darwinistic filter that selects against resistance. The iterated effect of this is specialization into two groups - essentially masters and slaves. The slaves have adapted to prefer slavery and even if given freedom their instincts will drive them to seek a new master. Interestingly, it isn't clear that this survival strategy is incorrect either. When man eventually encounters more dominant life, the slaves will likely still be slaves and the masters will be pruned.
Choice:
*Democracy rewards the individuals and groups that are more persuasive than others. Groups with superior opinion control technology out-perform groups with inferior methods. That is a selection filter which necessarily advances opinion control technology. The iteration limit of that evolution is indistinguishable from mind control.
Capitalism:
*I was going to show that the consequence of capitalism yields the opposite of free markets - although interesting, it would be a bit too long.
All very true, but I belive it is not only a biological factor in play.
Humans and Society also develops psychologically. For instance a man does not have to be a slave type even if all his ancestors were.
He can educate himself to redirect his survival instincts elsewhere.
This I belive is the essence of the Anarchy ideology. It does not tell society what it should be as a whole, but gives the individuals a psychological option to step outside the role/expectations society has for him.
@dollarvigilante is correct when trying to inform people they do not have to conform to the great collective instincts of the general population, but rather can go their own way.
The reality is, if you can find a way to thrive without, there is no law or custom in life you are obligated to follow.
Ultimately only you can judge you, everyone outside yourself who tries to hold you accountable to anything you do not want to be accountable for is trespassing on your self-given rights to yourself.
With respect, that is all mostly incorrect with a few well stated and valid clauses.
You are writing about your religious position now. I'm not sure how to respond to that. It doesn't seem sensible to argue religious convictions. You seem nice, good luck to you.