What is your preferred government?

[Druidus]

Keep in mind, you are not the leader, you are an average citizen.

And please, don't be biased for or against. Choose what fits you personally. Don't worry we won't tell .

Definitions:

Anarchism: Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

Monarchy: A state or government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch.

Democracy: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

Fuedal Monarchy: The practice of a monarchy with fuedalism added in. Fuedalism is a political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.

Theocracy: A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Social Democracy: A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism.

Chiefdom: A chiefdom is when small groups are governed by one chief each throughout the landmass. The chief is one who is highest in rank or authority; a leader. They are chosen either through birth-right or through contests of the mind and physical body.

Fundamentalism: A religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. The interpretation of every word in the Bible as literal truth

Autocracy: Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.

Edited April 21, 2004 by Druidus

[DC09]

Democracy all the way!

[chico del nacho]

whenever i hear of anarchism i think of anarchy and chaos. i like to force punks promoting anarchy to think about it as being pure chaos where there are no constants. hee hee hee...

[Althalus]

Democracy, when it works properly.

[Druidus]

whenever i hear of anarchism i think of anarchy and chaos. i like to force punks promoting anarchy to think about it as being pure chaos where there are no constants. hee hee hee...

That's not the true definition of anarchy though. Anarchy is not chaos but... Well just read my sig.

[chico del nacho]

interesting. regardless, i still vote for social democracy. it's like communism lite! only 1/3 the calories of normal communism! heh, probably getting this idea wrong too, but whatever.

[Druidus]

lol communism lite . Good one!

[Panthera leo atrox]

Deffinately democracy!!!

[Druidus]

Please everyone explain why you chose what you did, except for chico del nacho. His is already done and it's hilarious!

Starting with me:

I chose anarchy because I believe that once people are completely free of the shackles of government, crime and suffering will cease to exist. People will care about their neighbors and everyone will be friends. You could have children walk up to people they didn't know, ask for a ride, and the people they asked would do it. You wouldn't fear much anymore. They only problems would be the initial change and immigrants who would take advantage of our trust.

[snuffypuffer]

Democracy works better than all the others. Anarchy as Druidus defines it simply cannot work in the real world. You just can't trust people, and that's the cornerstone of the system. I would only like a monarchy if I got to be the king. And well, we all know what happened to communism.

Communism Lite

[chico del nacho]

lol i'm very glad people enjoy my post. i should make an poster advertising it and post them up all over town...see how long it takes for there to be riots and such

[Druidus]

Anarchy can work. After the initial period, everyone will have to trust eachother. All property belongs to the comunity, there is no currency, and if you don't trust, you won't get any trust back. Without that trust the people of the town would send you away. Anarchy deals with the trust factor through mediation of the entire people without representation. Eudaemonia would be an anarchy with complete trust by everyone in the entire world, and people giving just because they can. Eudaemonia is better but it is unlikely to happen. Once people realized that they don't need money, they don't need excess goods that are never used, we will learn to trust. Our food would come from the community at large. If we didn't trust, where are you gonna get your food? We can't live in the communities if you do not help the community, unless you are mentally or physically unable to. It may seem far-fetched but it is entirely possible.

[Druidus]

lol i'm very glad people enjoy my post. i should make an poster advertising it and post them up all over town...see how long it takes for there to be riots and such 

You should put it in your signature. Then we'll always remember it.

1/3 of the calories lol It'd be an awesome sig.

[dezavala]

Democracy. Of the people, for the people.

Maybe I'm more closed minded than I thought, but why wouldn't all countries want to be democracies? Like Iraq for example, they have the chance right now but they're kinda messing up for themselves.

[snuffypuffer]

There is no way anarchy can work on a large scale. You're assuming that all people would participate in the community equally, which would never happen. Human nature will rear it's ugly head and ruin everything. After the initial period, there would have to be a strong central authority or society will break down. Unless you're assuming that folks will just get tired of looting.

I'll compromise with you and say it could work in very, very small communities, but on a national scale it's impossible. You're forgetting all about human nature.

[GunnerCDM]

democracy because it really does seem to work the best

[Druidus]

That's the thing. Most people would live in small spread out communities. And you're saying human nature will stop it from working?

Please read the following thoroughly. I believe it answers your question.

Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however.

First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years, and war only become part of "human nature" once states developed. Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is.

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper.

These two features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying some innate needs within us.

In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming much worse than they are. . . , there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Today, however, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is determined by our genes. These claims have been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise that power. Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and "natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

This sort of apologetics is natural, of course, because every ruling class has always claimed that their right to rule was based on "human nature," and hence supported doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British Social Darwinism projected onto nature and human life.

Anymore arguments like that?

[jenk]

"Democracy is perhaps the worst system of government to have existed, except every other system!" Winston Churchill

Edited April 21, 2004 by jenk

[Druidus]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-Samuel Adams

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself... Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."

-H. L. Mencken

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

-Thomas Jefferson

"The most damaging phrase in the language is: "It's always been done that way."

- Grace Hopper

See, I can quote people too . Very smart people, in favour of anarchy. Winston also may have preferred anarchy because true anarchy has not existed yet and thus, does not apply to his quote.

Edited April 22, 2004 by Druidus

[snog44]

Druidus,

Consider you are an archist, and you and your fellow anarchists have created a peaceful society whereby you all work together to realize your needs.

I live the next community over, and one day I realize that you have quite a bit more than me. I come to you and explain the situation. You:

1) agree with me and give me some of your production

2) tell me to go fly a kite

If you go with option (1), you have just given into to what is essentially a shakedown, and set a precedent for all the others who may want what you have.

If you go with option (2), I may come bcak with my crew and attack yours, forcibly taking what we want. After all, you are not one of us. Why should we care if you suffer. You could fight back, and you might win. But statistically, you could not win all fights, and would succumb eventually. Welcome to history!

My point is, is though government is not always a great thing, it can be a great arbitrater against tyrrany. There really is no "toughest" group, and if there were, chances are they could control those who were weaker.

Just an observation.

[Druidus]

In an anarchy all the communities would share the resources amonst everyone. We would share with you without you asking.

[Druidus]

Please delete this. It was a multiple post.

Edited April 22, 2004 by Druidus

[Druidus]

Come on, is there no more opinions? Someone here must be a theocracist, or Chiefdomist.

[bathory]

anarchy gives people too much credit

it assumes people will play nice, which is definately not the case:)

[Druidus]

Read this bathory. Read it thoroughly.

No. Anarchy is not a utopia, a "perfect" society. It will be a human society, with all the problems, hopes, and fears associated with human beings. Anarchists do not think that human beings need to be "perfect" for anarchy to work. They only need to be free.

Obviously, though, we think that a free society will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others individuality and needs, thus reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies.

Like the "anarchism-is-against-human-nature" argument (see section A.2.15), opponents of anarchism usually assume "perfect" people -- people who are not corrupted by power when placed in positions of authority, people who are strangely unaffected by the distorting effects of hierarchy, privilege, and so forth. However, anarchists make no such claims about human perfection. We recognise that vesting power in the hands of one person or an elite is never a good idea, as people are not perfect and need to be accountable to others.

It should be noted that the idea that anarchism requires a "new" man or woman is often raised by the right-wing "anarcho"-capitalists to discredit real anarchism and justify the retention of hierarchical authority, specifically in capitalist relations of production. However, a moment's reflection will show that their "objection" discredits their own claim to be anarchists for they explicitly assume an anarchist society without anarchists! Needless to say, an "anarchy" made up of people who still needed authority and statism would soon become authoritarian and statist (i.e. non-anarchist) again.

This is because even if the government were overthrown tomorrow, the same system would soon grow up again, because "the strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves." [George Barret, Objections to Anarchism]

In other words, anarchy needs anarchists in order to be created and survive. But these anarchists need not be perfect, just people who have freed themselves, by their own efforts, of the superstition that command-and-obedience relations are necessary. The implicit assumption in the idea of a "new" anarchist person is that freedom will be given, not taken; hence the obvious conclusion follows that an anarchy requiring "perfect" people will fail. But this argument ignores the need for self-activity and self-liberation in order to create a free society.

Anarchists do not conclude that "perfect" people are necessary, because the anarchist is "no liberator with a divine mission to free humanity, but he is a part of that humanity struggling onwards towards liberty.

"If, then, by some external means an Anarchist Revolution could be, so to speak, supplied ready-made and thrust upon the people, it is true that they would reject it and rebuild the old society. If, on the other hand, the people develop their ideas of freedom, and they themselves get rid of the last stronghold of tyranny --- the government -- then indeed the revolution will be permanently accomplished." [ibid.]

After the initial phase we will have children. I suppose new arguments will arise about how children can be raised without punishing them and with having nothing to fear really.

Obedience that is based on fear of punishment, this-worldly or otherworldly, is not really goodness, it is merely cowardice. True morality (i.e. respect for others and one-self) comes from inner conviction based on experience, it cannot be imposed from without by fear. Nor can it be inspired by hope of reward, such as praise or the promise of heaven, which is simply bribery. As noted in the previous section, if children are given as much freedom as possible from the day of birth and not forced to conform to parental expectations, they will spontaneously learn the basic principles of social behaviour, such as cleanliness, courtesy, and so forth. But they must be allowed to develop them at their own speed, at the natural stage of their growth, not when parents think they should develop them. And what is "natural" timing must be discovered by observation, not by defining it a priori based on one's own expectations.

Can a child really be taught to keep itself clean without being punished for getting dirty? According to many psychologists, it is not only possible but vitally important for the child's mental health to do so, since punishment will give the child a fixed and repressed interest in his bodily functions. As Reich and Lowen have shown, for example, various forms of compulsive and obsessive neuroses can be traced back to the punishments used in toilet training. Dogs, cats, horses, and cows have no complexes about excrement. Complexes in human children come from the manner of their instruction.

As Neill observes, "When the mother says naughty or dirty or even tut tut, the element of right and wrong arises. The question becomes a moral one -- when it should remain a physical one." He suggests that the wrong way to deal with a child who likes to play with faeces is to tell him he is being dirty. "The right way is to allow him to live out his interest in excrement by providing him with mud or clay. In this way, he will sublimate his interest without repression. He will live through his interest; and in doing so, kill it." [summerhill, p. 174]

Similarly, sceptics will probably question how children can be induced to eat a healthy diet without threats of punishment. The answer can be discovered by a simple experiment: set out on the table all kinds of foods, from candy and ice cream to whole wheat bread, lettuce, sprouts, and so on, and allow the child complete freedom to choose what is desired or to eat nothing at all if he or she is not hungry. Parents will find that the average child will begin choosing a balanced diet after about a week, after the desire for prohibited or restricted foods has been satisfied. This is an example of what can be called "trusting nature." That the question of how to "train" a child to eat properly should even be an issue says volumes about how little the concept of freedom for children is accepted or even understood, in our society. Unfortunately, the concept of "training" still holds the field in this and most other areas.

The disciplinarian argument that that children must be forced to respect property is also defective, because it always requires some sacrifice of a child's play life (and childhood should be devoted to play, not to "preparing for adulthood," because playing is what children spontaneously do). The libertarian view is that a child should arrive at a sense of value out of his or her own free choice. This means not scolding or punishing them for breaking or damaging things. As they grow out of the stage of preadolescent indifference to property, they learn to respect it naturally.

"But shouldn't a child at least be punished for stealing?" it will be asked. Once again, the answer lies in the idea of trusting nature. The concept of "mine" and "yours" is adult, and children naturally develop it as they become mature, but not before. This means that normal children will "steal" -- though that is not how they regard it. They are simply trying to satisfy their acquisitive impulses; or, if they are with friends, their desire for adventure. In a society so thoroughly steeping in the idea of respect for property as ours, it is no doubt difficult for parents to resist societal pressure to punish children for "stealing." The reward for such trust, however, will be a child who grows into a healthy adolescent who respects the possessions of others, not out of a cowardly fear of punishment but from his or her own self-nature.

Most parents believe that, besides taking care of their child's physical needs, the teaching of ethical/moral values is their main responsibility and that without such teaching the child will grow up to be a "little wild animal" who acts on every whim, with no consideration for others. This idea arises mainly from the fact that most people in our society believe, at least passively, that human beings are naturally bad and that unless they are "trained" to be good they will be lazy, mean, violent, or even murderous. This, of course, is essentially the idea of "original sin." Because of its widespread acceptance, nearly all adults believe that it is their job to "improve" children.

According to libertarian psychologists, however, there is no original sin. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that there is "original virtue." As we have seen, Reich found that externally imposed, compulsive morality actually causes immoral behaviour by creating cruel and perverse "secondary drives." Neill puts it this way: "I find that when I smash the moral instruction a bad boy has received, he becomes a good boy." [summerhill, p. 250]

Unconscious acceptance of some form of the idea of original sin is, as mentioned previously, the main recruiting tool of organised religions, as people who believe they are born "sinners" feel a strong sense of guilt and need for redemption. Therefore Neill advises parents to "eliminate any need for redemption, by telling the child that he is born good -- not born bad." This will help keep them from falling under the influence of life-denying religions, which are inimical to the growth of a healthy character structure.

As Reich points out, "The Church, because of its influence on the sexuality of youth, is an institution that exerts an extremely damaging effect on health." [Children of the Future, p. 217] Citing ethnological studies, he notes the following:

"Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, no sexual perversion, no sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered channels which would fill any cleric with indignation and fear, because the pale, ascetic youth and the gossiping, child-beating woman do not exist in these primitive societies. They love the human body and take pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men and women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which bring them 'culture' along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead 'moral' lives, i.e. to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they decline more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result of sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous; murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes of all sorts start to appear." [ibid., p. 193]

Such crimes in our society would be greatly reduced if libertarian child rearing practices were widely followed. These are obviously important considerations for anarchists, who are frequently asked to explain how crime can be prevented in an anarchist society. The answer is that if people are not suppressed during childhood there will be far less crime, because the secondary-drive structure that leads to anti-social behaviour of all kinds will not be created in the first place. In other words, the solution to the so-called crime problem is not more police, more laws, or a return to the disciplinarianism of "traditional family values," as conservatives claim, but depends mainly on getting rid of such values.

There are other problems as well with the moralism taught by organised religions. One danger is making the child a hater. "If a child is taught that certain things are sinful, his love of life must be changed to hate. When children are free, they never think of another child as being a sinner." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 245] From the idea that certain people are sinners, it is a short step to the idea that certain classes or races of people are more "sinful" than others, leading to prejudice, discrimination, and persecution of minorities as an outlet for repressed anger and sadistic drives -- drives that are created in the first place by moralistic training during early childhood. Once again, the relevance for anarchism is obvious.

A further danger of religious instruction is the development of a fear of life. "Religion to a child most always means only fear. God is a mighty man with holes in his eyelids: He can see you wherever you are. To a child, this often means that God can see what is being done under the bedclothes. And to introduce fear into a child's life is the worst of all crimes. Forever the child says nay to life; forever he is an inferior; forever a coward." [ibid., p. 246] People who have been threatened with fear of an afterlife in hell can never be entirely free of neurotic anxiety about security in this life. In turn, such people become easy targets of ruling-class propaganda that plays upon their material insecurity, e.g. the rationalisation of imperialistic wars as necessary to "preserve jobs" (cited, for example, by US Secretary of State James Baker as one rationale for the Gulf War).

Another common objection to self-regulation is that children can only be taught to be unselfish through punishment and admonition. Again, however, such a view comes from a distrust of nature and is part of the common attitude that nature is mere "raw material" to be shaped by human beings according to their own wishes. The libertarian attitude is that unselfishness develops at the proper time -- which is not during childhood. Children are primarily egoists, generally until the beginning of puberty, and until then they usually don't have the ability to identify with others. Thus:

"To ask a child to be unselfish is wrong. Every child is an egoist and the world belongs to him. When he has an apple, his one wish is to eat that apple. The chief result of mother's encouraging him to share it with his little brother is to make him hate the little brother. Altruism comes later -- comes naturally -- if the child is not taught to be unselfish. It probably never comes at all if the child has been forced to be unselfish. By suppressing the child's selfishness, the mother is fixing that selfishness forever." [Neill, Op. Cit., pp. 250-251]

Unfulfilled wishes (like all "unfinished business") live on in the unconscious. Hence children who are pressured too hard - "taught" - to be unselfish will, while conforming outwardly with parental demands, unconsciously repress part of their real, selfish wishes, and these repressed infantile desires will make the person selfish (and possibly neurotic) throughout life. Moreover, telling children that what they want to do is "wrong" or "bad" is equivalent to teaching them to hate themselves, and it is a well-known principle of psychology that people who do not love themselves cannot love others. Thus moral instruction, although it aims to develop altruism and love for others, is actually self-defeating, having just the opposite result.

Moreover, such attempts to produce "unselfish" children (and so adults) actually works against developing the individuality of the child and their abilities to develop their own abilities (in particular their ability of critical thought). As Erich Fromm puts it, "[n]ot to be selfish implies not to do what one wishes, to give up one's own wishes for the sake of those in authority. . . Aside from its obvious implication, it means 'don't love yourself,' 'don't be yourself', but submit yourself to something more important than yourself, to an outside power or its internalisation, 'duty.' 'Don't be selfish' becomes one of the most powerful ideological tools in suppressing spontaneity and the free development of personality. Under the pressure of this slogan one is asked for every sacrifice and for complete submission: only those acts are 'unselfish' which do not serve the individual but somebody or something outside himself." [Man for Himself, p. 127]

While such "unselfishness" is ideal for creating "model citizens" and willing wage slaves, it is not conducive for creating anarchists or even developing individuality. Little wonder Bakunin celebrated the urge to rebel and saw it as the key to human progress! Fromm goes on to note that selfishness and self-love, "far from being identical, are actually opposites" and that "selfish persons are incapable of loving others. . . [or] loving themselves..." [Op. Cit., p. 131] Individuals who do not love themselves, and so others, will be more willing to submit themselves to hierarchy than those who do love themselves and are concerned for their own, and others, welfare. Thus the contradictory nature of capitalism, with its contradictory appeals to selfish and unselfish behaviour, can be understood as being based upon lack of self-love, a lack which is promoted in childhood and one which libertarians should be aware of and combat.

Indeed, much of the urge to "teach children unselfishness" is actually an expression of adults' will to power. Whenever parents feel the urge to impose directives on their children, they would be wise to ask themselves whether the impulse comes from their own power drive or their own selfishness. For, since our culture strongly conditions us to seek power over others, what could be more convenient than having a small, weak person at hand who cannot resist one's will to power? Instead of issuing directives, libertarians believe in letting social behaviour develop naturally, which it will do after other people's opinions becomes important to the child. As Neill points out, "Everyone seeks the good opinion of his neighbours. Unless other forces push him into unsocial behaviour, a child will naturally want to do that which will cause him to be well-regarded, but this desire to please others develops at a certain stage in his growth. The attempt by parents and teachers to artificially accelerate this stage does the child irreparable damage." [Neill, Op. Cit., p. 256]

Therefore, parents should allow children to be "selfish" and "ungiving", free to follow their own childish interests throughout their childhood. And when their individual interests clash with social interests (e.g. the opinion of the neighbours), the individual interests should take precedence. Every interpersonal conflict of interest should be grounds for a lesson in dignity on one side and consideration on the other. Only by this process can a child develop their individuality. By so doing they will come to recognise the individuality of others and this is the first step in developing ethical concepts (which rest upon mutual respect for others and their individuality).

After such upbringings, why wouldn't we play nice? The only way to even survive in an anarchy is to cooperate with your community. I hope you actually read that and didn't just skip to the bottom. In fact, I'm willing to get the answer to any question that you have about anarchy.