Atar, I hope my answer answers
Agreed. Though Burningman in its roots looked a lot less like it does now it goes about with less rules and regulations than normal society.
Sadly, BRCs more regulated nature seems to be more a function od feared litigiousness from citizens than any actual law enforcement issue. But yes, it has changed. We deal with the changes and wait for the pendulum to swing--or be forced--back.
No. 'Most votes count.' is democratic. I dare say there has been any Democratic vote in history where there was a complete consensus.
Consensus is a better form, in some cases, of democracy, but it's still democracy. It works well until counterproductive ideas are allowed into the consensus to hold the group together. Having worked extensively in consensus based systems, I like it--but I also know that it invariably leads to the split you describe. And that split tends to lead to periods of authoritarianism.
If a group, party or setting (for instance a livinggroup) cannot come to a consensus it might or (in my opinion) should break apart so that within two smaller groups so that there can be consensus within these groups. Then from a new and more informed point of view these two groups can try again to reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone is on the same line always, it means giving and giving. An atomosphere you can feel at burningman often.
Consensus is an amalgam stance. It combines various ideas to form one that the group agrees on. This can be great. Or awful.
Anarchism (at least for me) means doing what is best for the public,
Then your definition of anarchy is radically different from mine. An archy, no(an) overarching system(archy--or 'public'). In an anarchy there can be things that exist, processes that would benefit 'everyone', but there is no compulsion to carry them out. Nothing can enforce the public good because the 'public' as a viable frame of reference has ceased to exist.
The public has become a group of disparate sovereign individuals who can, and should, act in their own best interests
without infringing on their freedoms.
It is not possible to compell without infringing on freedoms.
The goverment that governs best is the goverment that governs less.
Yes.
I would like to hear about how you came to the conclusion of anarchism being a 'fight for your own right', aka chaos, thing.
Well, I don't think I advocated any fighting for rights--particularly in an anarchic system. Because you don't have any in an anarchy. But, as we go, I'll try to elaborate.
I would welcome an oil drought with open arms. It would mean, at least for a while, that transportion of goods was out of the question. If you want food, you are going to have to grow it localy.
Each year, at Christmas we get, in our stockings, and orange, a tangering, and an apple--usually a big Fuji or some other exotic. It's a tradition I've maintained from my childhood--it's one that's long in our family--and in many. Do you know why? Because, at one time, these were luxury items. Strange and rare treats from distant places
People would have to become more involved in the production of their own food and drink.
At one time we all struggled to have enough to eat. We lived lives that revolved around making sure we didn't die of starvation over the winter. We worked hard and lived short, brutish lives.
Leisure was the ultimate luxury and it led to art and science. Before leisure, before we stopped worrying about the gnawing in our stomachs, we scrabbled in the dirt
Cowmilk would quickly become a less used product as dairyproperty would have to become farmland for produce.
Cowsmilk, and other rich protein sources helped in our quest for lives beyond toil. Without modern farming techniques we cannot grow enough food to feed everyone.
Whole industries would slowly shrink or die out (airplanes, truckdrivers, etc).
And so would people. Millions--maybe billions will die.
In this drought, people would be forced to think about what happens when there is no more gas to be had on our earth
In this drought the strong will take what they need from the week. Humanitarianism will die to keep the generator running one more day--to stave off the darkness one more night. In your drought there will be war. Massive war.
In other words: Fuck global society. Go local.
We can't anymore. It's just not possible.
Could you explain how you came to this conclusion? Because it looks like you've read and/or talked about it a lot. But to me it seems you still hold an 'outsider' point of view on anarchy. Also know as chaos. 'Self first' sounds very capitalistic to me, or derived from those standards at the least (I am not saying that you are, ofourse, a capitalist).
I am a rational anarchist. Rational enough to understand that 'capitalism' is merely a word for the natural process that happens when you want something someone else has and don't want to kill them for it. Children, all unschooled, do it on the playground, or in the lunchroom--they trade something they can part with for something they want--and walk away wealthier. 'Capital'--money--is merely those same playground trades made with a 'coupon' that can be traded for whatever you want.
People who use 'capitalism' as a dirty word merely want you to function under their personal 'ism'. But most of their 'isms' don't work--they want to replace something that happens naturally in humans with something that doesn't. Sharing.
Sharing has to be taught. It has to be made clear to children that sharing pays off--that it works out to be in their best interests to share.
And 'their interests' is the key. Let's call it enlightened self interest, okay?
As an anarchist I want MY life to be the best it can be. So how do I go about that? By doing things and being in situations where I am happy. Now 'anarchy' has all that 'no rules' crap tied to it so a lot of people think this means that I take what I want, and do what I want without regard to others. But being that kind of asshole would leave a whole lot of unhappy(and in an anarchy possibly murderous) people in my wake. That would make my life unhappy. So, instead, I treat others the way I expect them to treat me. I do good things for people around me expecting the same in return. As long as things work out like that I'm happy.
And if they don't, justice is mine to mete out. Even here though, I consider what form that can take while maintaining my overall happiness. Can I kill the offender? Sure!--in an anarchy. But does the offense merit it? And can I defend my position from the offenders friends?
Anarchy isn't easy.
The basic thing is that nothing is compelled.
The problem--and hence all my caveats--is that there are far too many people who are not ready to be free of government compulsion. The trick is to teach them while weaning them from their need.
Now, you said I seem to come from an 'outsider' point of view. And I do. Because I'm an anarchist. I can't--by definition--BE an insider. There's nothing to be inside. See, the problem you're having is that the term 'anarchist' has been co-opted by people who are, at heart, leftists. They tack on some anarchic buzzwords but still think things like a 'public' are a real thing worthy of consideration. 'Public' means 'state'--however small you might reduce that states population. 'Public' means rules. And you can't have rules and be an anarchist--at best you have guidelines--extermely local and flexible--that make it possible to live without your neighbors killing you.
Rules are compulsion. With compulsion there can be no anarchy.
Humans are not ready--mentally or technologically(and technology is a must for anarchy to succeed) for anarchy yet.
But I've got time.
One last note, I single out those I feel are actually on the left side of the political spectrum when I point out those who would use the term without acting on the proper meaning of the word, but there are a few on the right side who do this as well--their version of anarchy exists to let them set up kingdoms where they make the rules. They are just as statist as those on the left.
Those who get called 'anarcho--capitalists' are usually laissez faire capitalists rather than anarchists at all. But, it is possible to be a 'capitalist' while being an anarchist. Capitalism can be reduced to barter--it needs no political system whatsoever. It falls well within the framework of loose guidelines that allow you to live a happy life without doing things that make your neighbors want to kill you.
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"
Privacy infringements are ten times worst than whats going on over on your side of the ocean.
I cannot agree more though.
