Message no. 184 Branch from no. 183 Posted by (james_m) on Mon Sep 30, 2002 00:23
hi, to keep with the trend of naming yourself
before posting....
as a warning, this is long, and I ramble.
with regard to k's post, I just have a few comments.
I definitely agree with him on there being no real
correlation between justice and anarchy; even in an
anarchic system there would be some semblance of order,
in that people would still have to interact with others,
which is our big reason behind justice, the maitenance
of order. if someone goes around killing people
randomly, they will be outcast from the group, to say
nothing of the group's desire for retribution. anarchy,
as a system, just means there is no formal system of
'laws and rules'. laws and rules are adjusted as they
are needed. this is actually where justice comes in, and
an anarchic system is a good place for a test case.
justice is designed to try and make sure that everyone
has things working for them as best as possible. the
logic behind this is not one of respect or love, really,
but the desire for security. as a generalisation, no one
wants to spend their life not knowing whether or not
their possessions will be taken away, or they will be
forced into some variety of slavery, or whatever. a
justice system tries to order these things, so that, at
the very least, you have the potential to make some sort
of stand about it. a justice system is designed to
protect the security of the group, and of the individual
within the group. should one exercise more power than
they are allowed, the system is supposed to counteract
that for the security of the group.
now obviously, this isn't how it works entirely, but
let's not get into a big debate about idealisations of
justice versus the reality, because everyone will just
be bickering in that.
just with regard to a few other of k's points, I
think he's exaggerating the glory of an anarchic system.
an anarchic system does not ensure peace; it certainly
decreases the potential of security on a personal level.
in addition, an anarchic system couldn't possibly last
in its purest form, in that, as social creatures, we
desire varieties of order, and often, we desire leaders
(or even if we don't, they arise anyway and attain that
status through their behaviour). on a large scale,
gradually a solid system will develope so that there is
some sort of cohesion between masses of people, as
opposed to small groups of, say, five people. on a large
scale of interaction, anarchy is not feasable.
in addition, an anarchy in this description is similar
in its sound to how communism is supposed to work, as a
'collective', which ignores the fact that people are not
solely a collective, but a multitude of collectives and
individuals. this ignorance of this fact is a fatal flaw
in the system (referring more to communism than to an
anarchic system). it forces the system to stagnate, as
it does not allow for individual growth, which is how
collective growth begins. this is also a flaw of the
anarchic system, in that there is no way for an
individual growth to influence others on a grand enough
scale for it to have an effect on the way the society
behaves. when this does happen, though (outside of its
theorhetical improbability, it will happen in a real
life situation), this is where the anarchic system
starts becoming something else and not an anarchic one.
next and final note: k said "In the example of
religion, etc., there has been so much war over that
basic one thing: a disagreement of the definition of
what is just and right."
actually, pretty much all religions have the same basic
idea of what is just and right. most have said "don't
kill, don't steal, don't have sex with random people,"
etc. it pretty much has come down to xenophobia of
sorts, in the past. "you're not like me! I must prove to
you my superiority! slice slice, chop!" except for
bhuddists, I think, who just continue walking and let
them run into their own men. (*note this has derailed
into a silly reference to a story a bhuddist friend told
me about a tai chi master being attacked by some other
guys. yeah.)
