Rules, democracy, and (to a lesser extent) policing have all been features of the anarchist communities I've witnessed or participated in. People deemed unsuitable (eg, because they are frequent rule breakers) by the community at large get the boot.
In fact, since the webmaster is pretty laissez-faire and the mods are not leaders (they are police), cboard is not too far from being anarchistic at all. I'm sure that if enough of the users got together via. a poll or something, and made a coherent request for a rule change with enough democratic support, we'd be listened to, and the mods would be as bound by that as anyone else.
I can go back and quote your lack of smiley face and "j/k"s if you want. You decided there was nothing to say further on the matter and indicated that the thread was done.
All I have gotten out of this thread is that CommonTater has been here just over a year and he has over 7000 posts. All I can say is wow!!! That is almost 12 posts per day for 1.5 years.
That is some serious cboard activity. :)
Wow... you guys are really subtle... :redface:
Anarchy actually refers to a state of society without government or rule of law (where law is a body of principles and rules that are applicable to all members of a community).
You are describing the idealist's view of anarchy, which involves a lack of any government that has the power to enforce laws, and cooperation between members of the community - who agree to live by some set of rules or guidelines. The pessimist's view of anarchy is a lack of government, with a fragile state of cooperation, and the society exhibits chaotic behaviour if enough individuals choose not to cooperate with others. The realist's view of anarchy is somewhere between those.
You are also mixing up the concepts of leadership and domination. Leadership is not about forcing one's will upon others - it is about having attributes that others are willing to follow through informed choice. Domination is about forcing one's will on others. Anarchy does not prevent leaders arising (although, when that happens, the society may become something other than an anarchy) and also does not prevent some people dominating others. In fact, in an anarchy, dominators (or dictators) often become firmly entrenched, because there is no systematic way to remove them.
Unlike an anarchy, other forms of society attempt to guarantee some consistency of rules and orderly transition of rules, other than what is determined by the most powerful or influential. Different forms of society vary in how much, and how, they achieve that.
In an anarchistic society, the role (or even existence) of police varies over time, because the nature of rules they enforce also varies over time.
What the crap?! I didn't come to the general forum for weighty philosophical debate! :lunaticsmiley:
Anarchy, if we take an interested look at history, has never proved itself to be a goal. It was always the beginning of a form of government. Anarchy just isn't sustainable.
True, Mario. Other types of community or society can emerge from an anarchy. It is a bit difficult to predict in advance which one will emerge. Just as, when another type of society breaks down, it can descend toward anarchy.
The idealistic form of anarchy tends to break down to something less ideal because there are always people who don't cooperate with others. The view of anarchy as a chaotic society also tends to break down, usually to some non-anarchic form of society, because there are always people who seek or prefer some form of order.