Damion

Sounds like it. Did they have currency? Do you have any links? Got anything in particular against Mr. Webster? (curiosity, not a challenge)

This quote is now written on my book bag. Thank you.

It wouldn't be more work at all. As for outside militia... A peaceful society with no central ideology wouldn't necessarily scream "invade me." Unless valuable minerals were found in the area you live or the areas around you were over-populated... I don't really see invasion as a problem. At least not military-campaign style. Perhaps slow encroachment. Hm?

I would recognize your claim, out of respect, if I liked you. Back to the importance of being part of the community. This is all theory, and I hate that. I'm trying to find anything like an example of anarchy in action... Thus the thread. I suppose the crowd here is more into current events than sociological studies.

You would have the option of safeguarding your goods, if you so choose. I just don't think that would happen often.

But you also have to keep in mind that people are communual animals. Not everyone would do the group thing, that's fine. But survival would depend on others. And the sharing of one's belongings is an age-old friend maker.

Structure increases the size of a community. With no control and no centralization, there would be no reason for any community to become very large. In this hypothetical situation, the hypothetical anarchists would hypothetically form hundreds of little communities of maybe a couple dozen people. It would eliminate the need. There would be no personal property. There would be no land-ownership. I think so. Think, indoctrination. If you're going to start an anarchist community, do so with fellow anarchists. Always keep the reasons for the move toward anarchy in mind. Keep the member of the community politically active, in a sense. Also, in such a community, the aid of others would most likely be needed. And people are fickle. If you do anything to harm them, you lose their support. You may even be asked to leave the community -- ideally, you wouldn't be forced to, as that would be control, but you may be pressured to. Either way, it's beneficial to maintain a good relationship with those around you, and sharing a moral standard is a great way to stay on someone's good side. rambleramble

It wouldn't work on a large scale, I don't think. Too many greedy people. But, a small community of people dedicated to freedom... My ideal is a small commune. you grow your own food, or work with others to grow food. Build your own house, or work with others (and on and on). To survive, you would have to be liked by as many people as possible, or very self-sufficient. Community would, by nescessity, take center stage. So would matters of the soul. Without an economic force, science would suffer, but art and philosophy would thrive. Ideally, at least. I think all that would be needed to make anarchy work would be, basically, a fresh start. I can see how government formed -- slowly, with increasing complexity. But, as things have developed, there has been increasing emphasis on freedom. If you had a group of people who agreed that maximum control wasn't nescessary, or even beneficial, anarchy could work. For at least a generation or two.

I wouldn't, either. But, the quote made a good point and did it well. I wanted to use it, I cited the source. It wasn't an attempt to make it seem like there was some anarchy bandwagon. It was 1) laziness and 2) a product of my tendency to read books and websites dedicated entirely to famous quotes and write them down in my ever-present notebooks. I wasn't aware it was a "popular catch-phrase."

I suppose the only way to achieve anything like an anarchist society is to make sure your group is dedicated to the cause.

See the quote (Plato). Also, you can't have crime without law. The three main reasons for committing a crime are convenience, money and thrill. Eliminate the laws, there goes reason 1 and 3. Eliminate the government and the idea of personal property, you eliminate the purpose of money and reason 2. Thanks. This site has quickly become a daily haunt for me.

This was the most relevant forum I saw, and I couldn't find any related threads, so I thought I'd post my first. I consider myself an anarchist at heart. While the subject of anarchy is usually seen as idealistic, barbaric, childish, even (dare I say it) stupid, I can't help but think people are better off left to their own devices. Philosophy and free-thinking are at their best when even the most liberal or conservative thoughts aren't considered radical, and any restrictions, especially those applied by a system of government or political party, only hinder the progress of intellect. Laws are often ineffective and often do more harm than good. As Plato put it, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." PSA aside, here's the subject -- Does anyone know of any experiments in anarchy? The best I can seem to find are references to a French revolution and how successful peasants were at governing themselves, but it's no good for my purposes...

Your question's a bit broad. Each drug harms the brain is different ways, and not all the drugs harm the brain. Some drugs, like ecstacy cause a lot of long term damage, where as some drugs, like pot, don't. Narrow your subject a bit if you want any real answers.