Damion

Is that the sort of example you are looking for?

Sounds like it. Did they have currency? Do you have any links?

I read that as "Perhaps we should move away from Merriam Webster definitions" and clapped.

Got anything in particular against Mr. Webster? (curiosity, not a challenge)

"Freedom is the absolute right of all adult men and women to seek permission for their actions only from their own conscience and reason, and to be determined in their actions only by their own will, and consequently to be responsible only to themselves, and then to the society to which they belong, but only insofar as they have made a free decision to belong to it."

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

It would be more work to not have a government and thus anarchy than it would be to have a government because it is man's natural disposition to organize himself and his community. Once a villain came by and rapped and pillaged an area a militia would form prevent if from happening again.

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.

There are examples of semi-anarchys in history. How about the mountain men in America?

Hm?

In that case you would recognise my property rights over my goods? Just trust to peoples communal spirit not to abuse those rights?

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.

I may be a communal animal, but i don't want to have others feel they are automatically entitled to the fruits of my labour. That would offend against any concept of natural justice.

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

I think we have to accept that the idea of property is natural to our species. Any society would have to find a way of working with that idea rather than against it.

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.

That doesn't sound like anarchy' date=' it sounds like a form of communism.

 

Maybe we need to take a closer look at our definitions. What exactly do you consider to be anarchy? It seems to be different from most concepts of that state of affairs.[/quote']

 

an·ar·chy ( P ) (nr-k)

n. pl. an·ar·chies

1) Absence of any form of political authority.

2) Political disorder and confusion.

3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

 

There would be no law. Property is an idea enforced by law. Personal property would have to be constantly guarded, and as such I think the idea of it would become tiresome and you'd get a mostly community-owned system. Theoretically.

Lets say America decided to make a free state of Anarchists, Lets say they gave the anarchists half of Montana.

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.

Certainly you would have many people wanting to join an anarchist state to get away from the structure of law. Many of them would no doubt be criminals who did not want to abide by authority. As you stated earlier some crimes are committed because of convenience. How would this eliminate convenience?

It would eliminate the need.

If someone did not want to work or be apart of the community what would stop them from stealing what they needed?

There would be no personal property.

 

This is where community comes into play. If the victim was a sociable, loved person, many people would be seeking revenge on his killer. The killer would either be killed or shunned, I assume.

 

What about when more and more people started populating this free state, how would land be divided and what happens in the case of disagreements over it?

 

There would be no land-ownership.

 

Can you do that in an anarchy?

 

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

But as you say without law there is no law to break' date=' but what then? What if someone gets drunk and kills someone, or what about drugs, what about school systems, what about the army... There are a million things that would need to be considered and worked out.

 

I am all for a better world, but I don't see how any form of anarchy could provide that.[/quote']

 

In a lawless society, there would, potentially, be severe consequences for harming someone else. Personally, I'm a pacifist, but I could easily see someone taking the "eye for an eye" approach. There's murder in all cultures, but with anarchy you eliminate a lot of the reasons someone would have for killing. Any system has a number glitches -- I think anarchy has the fewest.

 

As for drugs, the main force behind the thriving drug market is, you know, the market. With no money or property, drugs would be manufactured/grown purely for enjoyment, not for monetary gain. People might have a field of marijuana, but they wouldn't be able to sell it, or even own it. It would be, essentially, community property. This would, theoretically, limit drug production down to a minimum.

 

What would you propose to make anarchy work in any given society?

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 don't know that I'd go around quoting Plato as a proponent of anarchy.

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'm afraid you're going to have to better than popular catch-phrases and witty slogans with this crowd.

I wasn't aware it was a "popular catch-phrase."

I agree totaly. a state of "Anarchy" may exist for a short while durring upheaval or upset, but it`s always very short lived. eventualy a state of "Order" will always prevail. it`s all part of our Pack Animal mentality, eventualy the people cry out for some type of order/justice/control, usualy falling on the one best fit to lead.

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

How so?

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.

By the way welcome to the boards!

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...

But what is time?

 

The standard quantum mechnical definition of time is the direction in which entropy increases; but since it has been shown the law of entropy can be broken on small scales' date=' this calls into question time. And of course there's the entire time dilation issue.[/quote']

 

I thought time was a relative, man-made concept.

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.

Well, it still can't be totally ruled as non-environmental. It's just not from an obvious cause. There could be pheremonal influence on the genetic predisposition, for instance. The environment is so complex that ruling out it's influence would require raising kids in laboratory situations, which isn't exactly something a medical ethics board is going to approve.

Oh boy. Semantics. Okay, here we go:

There were no environmental causes that I'm aware of, even (or, rather, especially) those typically blamed for potentially causing homosexuality that I'm aware of (nor is anyone that watched him grow up are aware of any such incidents).

Interestingly enough, though, he had several older brothers, which could serve as proof for some of the little tidbits I contributed earlier. And, for anyone who says homosexuality is infectious, his mother (my great aunt) babysat for everyone in that little town, and he played with all of them. We're all still friends and none of them are gay (or at least not openly so).

I wouldn't say none. Perhaps it was somethign subtle, something in utero, like his mother's diet? There's too many factors to rule out the influence of environment completely.

I meant after birth. Sorry, should have clarified.

2-10 is[/b'] an 8% variation, my hypothesis would suggest it was effected by local population size, more specifically the size of the family group, the number of older brothers.

The variation comes from different studies using different methods. The variations from individual studies stay pretty steady at around 2%-4% (in studies done by anti-gay researchers) or around 10% (in studies done by pro-gay organizations). To avoid an argument on which statistic is correct, I simply mashed the two averages together. It was laziness, yeah, but it's not a major issue. The point isn't how many people are gay, the point is whether or not it's a choice.

I still maintain that behavioural traits are not 100% deterministic based on genes, the enivronment plays a large part in sculpting the phenotypic expression of the trait.

Nature vs. nurture is a broad topic, and all serious studies I've seen have laid the blame squarely on... both. Humans are complex beings with simple instincts, and these two things often mesh in confusing ways. But, someone’s sexual preference isn't like someone's preference for crunchy or creamy peanut butter -- it's a basic, instinctual choice. Ask anyone who has known or raised a gay man from birth. They'll almost universally tell you from the time the kid was four or five it was obvious what their sexuality was. My cousin, the most prominent homosexual in my family, was walking around tiptoe (to simulate stiletto heels), playing with Barbie dolls and hanging out almost exclusively with girls when he was five. Effeminate all his life. He finally came out when he went to college. There were no other homosexuals in the household. He wasn't molested. He grew up in a backwoods town of around 300 people. There was no environmental factor.

I'm just saying that it is possible to overcome urges, it was an example, I don't really often feel this way and would never act on it in a way which harms another person.

You're absolutely right. It's possible to abstain from sex, gay or straight. What's your point? That gays should abstain? If that's what you're getting at, it's pretty ridiculous. Gay men or women have the same right to have consensual sex as any heterosexual. Do you disagree?

So like I can overcome an urge to rape and even abstain from sex. Why is it that homosexuals can't overcome the urge to sodomise.... the point is its not that they have no choice, its that they don't want to make the choice.

 

Not saying theres anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However it still shows that its a CHOICE.

Your sexual preference is NOT a CHOICE. Whether or not you have sex, yeah, that's a CHOICE. But the sexual act doesn't affect the sexual preference.

The points I am making is:

 

"Homosexuality isn't predetermined by genes" : this is because no behavioural trait is predetermined by genes, it is a combination of genes and the environment that produces a phenotype. Therefore just because you have a homosexual gene doesn't mean you will express this phenotype; ie it doesn't mean you will be gay. Likewise, not having the homosexual gene doesn't mean you won't be gay.

I'm not saying it's 100% due to genetics in 100% of the cases. Genes, though, most likely play a role -- and not a small one. But, for argument's sake, let's say it's environmental. Fine. Sexual preference is still determined before a person hits sexual maturity, and it can't be reversed. It's still not a CHOICE.

"Homosexual behaviour is a choice" : this is because even if the desire to do an action is there, we have control of our choices, the example was of a man who was supposedly "gay" not showing this behaviour untill after a long marriage and having children. Thus he chose to show heterosexual characteristics even though he was always supposedly "gay"......

Homosexuality is not a CHOICE. Whether or not you're going to hide your true sexuality, that's a CHOICE. Whether he should or shouldn't have hidden his sexuality isn't the point. You can choose to start a family with a gay man, maybe adopt some children -- does that make you homosexual?

This trait is one which was formed before modern society, it becomes prevalent when the population size grows large, this is a result of it being recessive and also part of the evironmental conditions needed to trigger it. Before we had argriculture, large population size meant short resources. Homosexuality is an advantageous trait where a family member gives up his reproductive fitness to altruistically enhance the fitness of close kin.

Which would explain why homosexuality wasn't deleted completely through the evolutionary process, but it doesn't explain why it still pops up. And, the rate of homosexuality doesn't change, no matter what the population size, economic conditions, etc. 2%-10% is the norm, all over the globe, in every place there have been studies or census that I've heard of. It becomes more prevalent with population growth, yes, but not more common.

I would like to look at that study where they found a correlation between older brothers and homosexuality, then see if there was any significant difference where the older brothers were still alive, or alive at the time of sexual maturity of the homosexual individual. Because males have a very different reproductive strategy to females and perhaps with a little statistics the optimum ammount of reproducing sons could be calculated.

Most reliable statistical information on homosexuality is found on accident. The only people who seem to study only homosexuality are usually doing do for personal reasons and produce data that's skewed in their favor. As a result, most study results are very specific, and are often found out accidentally or as an afterthought question on a survey. I don't know of any studies that have the information you want.

Thats a great way to contradict your argument, homosexuality isnt exactly conducive to reproduction, unless you look at it latterally, I'm not trying to argue morals or ethics, I am just pointing out how it can logically fit with evolutionary theory. Behavioural traits are never 100% deterministic in humans, in fact you give me an example below.

It doesn't contradict in the least. Sexual habits are largely genetic. I'm not saying homosexuality isn't a genetic quirk. You can have a genetic, forgive the expression, abnormality that affects your "wiring" in a major way, like causing you to be born homosexual. It doesn't make it a choice.

Yes, he may say that, and perhaps I could take that as the truth. BUT it still means that he can override his urge and make a choice to do something different. I am a rampant heterosexual, whenever I see a hot chick bend over I get this urge.... I don't act on that now do I.

No offense, but that was retarded. I'm sorry -- you're obviously intelligent, but that was really... Rape and homosexuality are two completely different things. If you can't see the distinction, I don't think explaining it further would do any good.

Dense lab conditions you say, well this is exactly the kind of environment that homosexuality would be favourable in, this is where production of excess offspring would just lead to famine and loss of more offspring than necessary, if instead only some breeders were present and a few homosexual "helpers", then the population on a whole would be more viable.

Regardless of how favorable the conditions would be to homosexuality, they can't be blamed. With humans, in industrialized countries, population rarely affects food supplies or survivability. And, all of these species -- hundreds -- that have been documented as being homosexual or, at least, having homosexual trysts, many in zoos where they're well fed and well taken care of... survival needs don't play into it.

Regarding the whole "its genetic, so it can't be a choice", thing, genes do not 100% determine a humans phenotypic potential, it is a combination of genes and the environment which produce a phenotypic trait, when we are discussing a trait as complex as sexual attraction I would suggest that the environment plays a major role.

Sex isn't complicated. It's the most basic of instincts. If it wasn't ingrained in the genes somewhere, our earliest ancestors wouldn't have reproduced. Environment may play a role, but it's not a major one.

What about examples of gay people being married and having children and then several years later "deciding" they are gay and getting a divorce?

I actually know a man who did that, and I know his boyfriend. He was always gay, but because of social pressures he hid his sexuality, denied it, and, having been taught it was a choice by ignorant peers, tried to become straight. In the end, he ended up hurting his wife, his children, and himself. He didn't just decide to be gay one day. He decided to stop lying.

Personally I think the genes for homosexuality are X linked and are not expressed by people carrying them unless they are exposed to the right womb environment which is determined by environmental factors effecting the same gene in the mother, then post-natal the environment must also be conducive to homosexuality, say if all the older brothers have died or the population was small then homosexuality would not be expressed because it then would be deleterious.

What environmental factors? Do you have anything, anything at all, to use as evidence for this hypothesis?

If homosexuality was entirely genetic then you would expect where there was one gay identicle twin that the other would be gay in 100% of cases. Fraternal twins can actually share no genes at all, it is just statistically likely that they will share half their genes, you also would expect this statistic to be higher. I guess one way this argument could be countered would be to say that society is forcing the gay people to adopt heterosexuality because it is a social taboo..... thus skewing the figures, however it doesn't really hold well in todays more liberal society.

The statistic is extraordinarily high. On average, your likelyhood of being gay is around 2%-10% (depending on whose study you're looking at). Compared to that, 55% is incredible. Therefore, indicates some genetic (or otherwise unalterable, uncontrollable) factor.

This is supposedly due to the womb environment, the mothers hormone levels can alter the development of the foetus, thus again this does not support a genetic cause, but rather a pre-natal environmental one. The homosexuals can still claim "they were born like that", and, "have no choice though". However it should be noted that if you want to use the rhetort from the previous study, that they were forced to be heterosexual, then this actually counters the argument they have no choice.

The point isn't whether it's genetic or caused by womb conditions, the point is it can't be chosen. These are things entirely out of the control of the individual. Discriminating against someone because they're homosexual is as wrong as discriminating against someone born blind. They're different than the norm, but they can't help it.

Finally some evidence that homosexuality is genetic, however it can be noted, that not living in the household (or not) doesn't mean there was no environmental contact with these individuals, it does not control for this and shouldn't be shown as such. I does show that homosexuality could (possibly) be X linked, wether this is due to something on the X chromosome causing the mothers womb environment to differ, or if it is causing the individuals trait is another question though.

That's the point. It's likely linked to the X chromosome. And, whether they were in the home (though they weren't) is irrelevant. You can't catch "the gay."

Now we are talking, this is a clear benefit of homosexuals, they can help in family groups, even if they do not produce offspring of their own, thus increasing the fitness of the family group. If the gene which causes homosexuality is carried by the MOTHER rather than the individual, it is the mother who is controlling their children’s reproductive success/motivation, the first few males will more likely be 'normal' and go off and multiply, but the others will be more likely to be homosexual and thus help with child care and gathering of food for the group, while not burdening the group with their own offspring, this on the whole would make the group stronger especially during times when resources were scarce.

*nod* And, thus, homosexuality is actually, despite the obvious draw back of not producing offspring, evolutionarily viable.

Environmental causes need not be molestation.... it may be likely that molestation did cause homosexuality in some cases though. Where can I find evidence of these gay animals? Are they sexually active *shudder* (sorry).

1) The common arguments are sexual molestation or exposure to pornography. The thinking is, sexual perversion must come from sexual perversion, and homosexuality is considered (if considered a choice) sexual perversion. Either way, whatever environmental causes may cause homosexuality in humans are likely not going to be found in, say, a beetle's environment. And, homosexuality seems to be pretty evenly distributed, from everything I've read, so climate, pollution, radiation, etc. aren't a factor. The only possible explanation: it's just a common condition.

2) Yes, they're sexually active. You shudder, but hot lesbian action is hot lesbian action, be it human, penguin or whatever. (It's a joke, it's a joke) As for evidence, just Google it. Set your filter, though. "Gay animals" might bring up some stuff you might not want to inadvertently click on.

What isn't a natural condition?

Someone (I forget who, but it was an earlier comment) had tried to blame dense lab conditions, which is implausible if there’s such a wide array of homosexual animals.

Check my post a few pages back

Too lazy.

Well' date=' some bits of it yes, but you summarised it really well.

 

What do you mean by a surplus of fingertip ridges?[/quote']

 

More ridges than usual, I suppose. It can happen in straight people too, but it's noticeably more frequent in gays.

I've never posted a reply on this site before -- I just randomly stumbled on this thread during research for an essay on same-sex marriage -- and I'm not too familiar with sites like this, so I hope I'm replying correctly here. Forgive me if something gets messed up. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Homosexuality is at least partly, some say entirely, genetic. Certain facts found by biologists: identical twins, who shared 100% the same genes, had a 55% likelihood of both being homosexual, and non-identical twins, who share half of the same genes, had a 22% likelihood of both being gay; Gays and lesbians tend to have short index fingers relative to their ring fingers, and 16% more homosexuals than heterosexuals show a surplus of fingertip ridges on their left hands (which seem to indicate that there’s some relation, and, since finger length and number of ridges are both determined before birth, indicate that perhaps homosexuality is determined before birth, also); in the mid-90’s gay men are likely to have older brothers, and each older brother increases the likelihood of homosexuality in the youngest brother by 33%, suggesting that some biological change, possibly an immune response in the mother during pregnancy, can cause homosexuality; homosexuality runs in families, and a man with gay relatives on his mother’s side was much more likely to be gay, whether or not the relatives resided in the household; a study showed that female relatives on the mother's side of homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side, suggesting there’s some genetic factor involved -- and those are just a few examples of possible evidence for a biological cause.

Also, homosexuality is found in many species of animal -- beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins, ostriches, flamingos, macaques, bonobos, dogs, cats, elephants, seals... I doubt these animals (many observed in normal, natural circumstances by animal researchers) had early exposure to pornography or were molested or whatever psychological trauma you think may cause homosexuality. And such a pervasive sampling can't be limited to just humidity or population conditions. It's obvious that homosexuality is a natural condition.

I skipped from page 2 to page 6, so I hope I haven't said anything someone else has.