METAPHYSICS· ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES

Civilization

Civilization Versus Anarchy

Whether anarchy or civilization... gauntlets in tandem?

(3rd edition - February 2008) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article

Over the centuries it seems evident, or even since the beginnings of civilization it seems evident… humans are incapable of ruling each other… not judiciously and not intelligently. Since civilization began rooting itself some 7,000 years ago, only a few dozen men have made good kings, good rulers. And of the millions of bureaucrats seemingly few have been worth their salt. Today, you probably can’t find one good bureaucrat in a hundred. These are ominous signs ‘civilization’ has failed to live up to its expectations.

At least that’s how it often seems… but before trying to make an objective comparison between anarchy and a civilized existence, let’s begin by looking at civilization from a pessimistic point-of-view then see where it goes.

While the concept of 'civilization' seems to have failed in several respects, all the root causes lead to the fact ‘humans ruling humans’ goes against nature itself. It was not intended that man should be governed, it is unnatural. It is as unnatural as one bear telling another what to do. It is unnatural as one flock of birds telling another flock where they can and cannot fly. Creatures, after all, only submit to guidance until adulthood. Ah, but wait, what about intimidation? One animal intimidating another into doing something amounts to the same thing as a directive. This seems natural. And what about herds? Herds have protocols… don’t they? Wild horses, it has been demonstrated, must 'go along' or risk being ostracized. Assuredly deer and caribou herds have protocols too. Fish have schools and birds have flocks.

Of course, we all know the various protocols are associated with survivability. The vulnerable keep themselves together to improve their chances for survival... although some predators, such as wolves, run in packs for hunting efficiency. The powerful, on the other hand, don’t need to run in packs. As for the most defenseless of creatures, at first glance flocking together wouldn't seem to make much sense... they'd still be easy prey. After all, predators can still take their pick of the litter... except, it isn't the strongest and fastest within a group which are the targets usually, but the weakest or slowest. For the stronger and faster then, it improves their chances. In effect, herds, schools and flocks use the weakest and slowest for bait. As to how that would apply to humans, in a reality made of money... suckers would be the targets.

Still, humans aren’t horses, birds, bears, deer, dogs or fish. Whether some humans prefer the isolationism of a bear, or to flock like sheep, doesn't matter... nobody has the god-given authority to rule another. Since there is no record of any authority given, not by our maker anyway, ‘humans ruling humans’ is therefore unnatural... but then again, the creator isn't known to issue decrees. His wishes can only be determined by what is considered 'natural'. And, as we've noticed, we weren't born with collars.

In lieu of explicit instructions then, what might be natural for humans? Herds and flocks, along with their protocols, are apparently natural but so is the individualism of a bear and mountain lion. So, which of these is natural for humans? Might humans flocking together be natural after all? Along with protocols too? Might ‘human rule’ be for survival purposes similar to the security flocks and herds provide? But survival for whom? The weak, the leaders or all mankind? One often wonders too, blast it, is it to preserve mankind or his institutions? Well, perhaps the following might answer those questions.

The institution of civilization

In the very beginning, each family was basically on their own... then families started grouping together for mutual support and, as if a phenomenon, this grouping never stopped growing. As one group of families got bigger and therefore more powerful, other families had to follow suit. They eventually evolved into countries and rest is history. In this respect then, regardless of what God intended, it was humans who chose to run in packs. Of course, packs require leaders, and rules. It became what we call civilization.

Still, at least to some degree 'civilization' is unnatural. For one, unlike flocks and herds, the strongest and wisest are rarely the rulers anymore. At least not since the days when anarchy was anarchy.

Of course, there are several other negative side-effects and shortcomings for being ‘civilized’. For one, invariably institutions end up serving themselves whereas its original purpose takes the backseat. For institutions, it is survival at all costs. They don't evolve for the better except to strengthen their own position... nor, if their usefulness ceased, would they ever voluntarily step aside. The Internal Revenue Service, of course, is a monstrosity beyond words.

While it might often seem being civilized has paid off despite its shortcomings, there is evidence it has only proven itself a short term solution to the negative aspects of living under anarchy. While it took centuries for civilization to take hold in most cases, depending on the region, and while the concept once looked promising… the promising aspects only lasted a century or two before the worm began to turn. To be ‘civilized’ soon meant ‘to be controlled' effectively amounting to the loss of personal liberties at the point of a gun.

For some, even though the loss of some liberties might seem more tolerable compared to anarchy, some negative side effects have been growing exponentially. Most notably egregious is that civilization has allowed man, indeed encouraged man, to exploit the resources of earth in orchestrated unison. And, with higher standard-of-living civilization offers, including police protection and health care, this has allowed the human population to explode… necessitating even further exploitation which continues under the protection of civilized law.

Anarchy... a bad circumstance?

While anarchy is lambasted as a very bad circumstance, it may not have always been historically true. If it was largely true, then the alleged amount of killings would have kept the population in check. On the other hand, if anarchy wasn't so bad (not so many killings), then the situation we find ourselves in today (over-populated) would have occurred regardless. Either way, to whatever degree anarchy served that purpose, however this is viewed, it was a 'natural effect'. Only an injected element such as 'civilization' could have an altering effect. Of course, its impact turned out to be enormous... the population explosion and industrial advancements causing the greatest altering (unnatural) effects.

Unfortunately, although beyond the scope of their imagination, the ancient architects could not have foreseen the ultimate impact. Only recently did 20/20 hindsight awaken us to the environmental dangers. We haven't yet, however, fully recognized the dangers of civilization's aggressive social policies.

From a broader point-of-view, as an injected element to improve matters initially civilization has only produced superfluous positive results in light of its overall impact.

Furthermore, the realities it creates are often contradictory. It is paradoxical that civilized warfare effectively cancels out the gains from modern medicine. Or, strangely, unrelated advancements have the effect of canceling out the automobile accidents worldwide which kill nearly 100,000 people annually. That's life, the logic goes. While population gains are more than offsetting losses, it is only the survivors of this gauntlet which benefit. There's no denying it, whether anarchy or civilization, they're both gauntlets.

In trying to be objective and make a case against anarchy as well, it's more difficult. We can't compare modern-day anarchic situations following the collapse of a government during war or civil strife since those situations would be due to the failure of civilization, not anarchy. Since we'd need a 'settled' example, only a people living under anarchy for more than 3 generations could serve as a comparison. Except for the religious radicals in the mountains of Afghanistan, apparently none exist... at least not intellectual equals. So, the only way to envision anarchy is to subtract the effects of civilization.

In subtracting the effects, it would have been a world of far fewer luxuries. Items of every variety, large and small, and especially those which require hundreds of skilled craftsmen probably wouldn’t exist. It would be the tradeoff for living under anarchy just like the loss of personal freedoms is the tradeoff for being ‘civilized’.

Yet, at what price these luxuries? Well, the cost has been deferred. While modern gadgets and conveniences are great, although we could live without them, neither the 21st century, nor any future century, will have the comforting thought that our natural resources are ‘limitless’. It's a high price to pay.

Civilized societies aren't coping with the current population it created either... tens of thousands die each day from starvation. So, is civilization serving the best interests of mankind in the long run? Perhaps though, it isn't a fair question. The current situation may have been inevitable whether civilization was 'in charge' or not because civilization is really only a progressive state of anarchy. In other words, civilization is only a system for which to control anarchic situations. To blame civilization for over-population would be like blaming a broken dike for flooding a valley. Without the dikes, of course, the flooding would have occurred anyway. Of course, in going too far in trying to manage things it made matters worse.

Despite the negative impact of over-population, the idea to control it isn't on any political agenda since it would have a negative effect on the world economy. Lobbyists wouldn't like it. In need of ever-expanding marketplaces, big business would fight the idea tooth and nail. Only China sees it differently.

The ethically unfit and civilized law

Aside from the aforementioned long-term downsides from living under the rule of law (civilization), overshadowing them all is the shortcomings of human nature. More specifically, this humungous negative is the ethically unfit. Unfit humans are the guiltiest of all parties for bringing civilization to its knees… more-so than institutions, more-so than even ruling megalomaniacs. Of course, this isn't just a problem for civilization but would apply to anarchic societies as well.

The unscrupulous, those without an operating conscience, consisting of people who would stoop to any level to get what they want, is the reason laws were thought necessary in the first place. Subsequently, as loopholes in the laws were discovered one by one, more and more laws were deemed necessary. We see the result… we are now drowning in a sea of laws.

The unfit were (are) the squanderers, the wasteful, the destroyers of land, the cheats, thieves, intimidators, liars and murderers. While the list is much longer, it's what necessitated so many laws… and because of these fundamental indiscretions (and worse) committed by humans since the beginning, there has always been an adversarial relationship between governments and its citizens. Governments don’t trust its citizens any more than its citizens trust them and both have just cause. The primary reason civilization can’t function humanitarianly is not only because good leaders are hard to find, or because institutions invariably fail, but because millions upon millions of unethical and egregious acts are committed daily. Humans seem to beg for tyranny… making a police state inevitable under any political system.

Today, laws try to herd the unfit whereas under anarchy it was the fear of reprisals. While laws provide for punishment, reprisals might either be more harsh or more lenient but jailing would rarely occur. The matter would likely be dealt with swiftly and, unlike today, done cost effectively. While we know civilization has proven itself ineffective in controlling crime, due primarily to its endless legal definitions, anarchy probably didn't do much better. Without a standard, undoubtedly justice was all over the map. Roving gangs of murderous thieves would be the biggest problem in anarchic societies but neighborhood militias met (of could meet) this challenge.

These militias, of course, would evolve into armies due to one-upmanship. If one group of associated families grew, others had to follow suit to meet the challenge. It was inevitable the successful organizations would become countries and they, in turn, made civilization inevitable. For the sake of a better life however, shortsightedness ruled instead of foresightedness. It was a case of instant gratification.

Household anarchy

So how would it feel living under anarchy? Well, if we can consider 'unwritten laws' as anarchy, then we already know. Under that description, almost every household on earth is anarchic… it would be uncommon if a household had written laws covering its particular household rules. Like anarchy, family members normally abide by verbal, known or assumed understandings. Curfews placed on children are seldom in the form of written laws… they are verbally expressed by the parents.

Or, similarly, if we can consider 'codes of conduct' in lieu of written laws as anarchy, then it effectively exists outside the home as well. In order for people to successfully interact with others, they should, but are not legally required to, abide by the unwritten (nonbinding) codes of proper conduct. Proper conduct, of course, was devised by trial and error during the Stone Age… retribution comes into play for those who don’t abide by these codes. In short, societies can function without written rules. As testimony, 'unwritten' codes of conduct, just like the 'unwritten' household rules, are effective even in a 'civilized' society. As 'regulators', they stand side-by-side with law with 'assumed understandings' covering the unaddressed.

These unwritten rules of proper conduct, or any rule (law) whatsoever, can only be made genuine by those in position to penalize. In other words, ordinarily one would only obey those whose retribution they fear. It is not just government retributions they might fear, but likely those of any enemy. Without the need of legal recourse, sufficient retribution can also come from neighborhoods, employers, relatives, clubs, consumers and voters.

In order for an anarchic society to carry on efficiently it must rely heavily on truth, trust and goodwill... but so does civilization. In this, civilization and anarchy are no different… neither can function effectively otherwise. Actually, to ‘function’ infers that a particular system is ‘operating as intended' but this can only be applicable to civilized societies. In other words, anarchy isn’t a system (at all) so therefore there isn’t anything ‘institutional’ to break down. If anarchy gets ‘out of hand’ (too much killing or wholesale injustice for example), then it is merely 'intolerable'. Was anarchy intolerable then? For enough people, apparently so… otherwise laws wouldn’t have been created.

The essence of anarchy

In effect, civilization consists of a body of laws and these laws are like a structure's veneer and the 'structure' is anarchy. In other words, civilized law is just an add-on. Anarchy, on the other hand, isn’t a system but instead the absence of a system. Yet it exists nonetheless and is pervasive. It is as omnipresence as the earth and sun. It is fundamental. Underneath all laws is anarchy, a permanent fixture. Like the sun, it cannot be outlawed or banished... civilized law can only try to have more influence.

In order to have true anarchy, there cannot be any laws agreed upon… not a single solitary one. Once a single law is agreed upon as enforceable… it is no longer anarchy. If this wasn't true, then any unaddressed injustice would define civilization as anarchy. The essence of anarchy is ONLY non-enforceable understandings (with no prescribed penalties). However, one would soon learn that courtesy, respect and honesty is how one survives in a lawless society. One must be ethical... or else.

Once thought a cure-all for anarchical injustices, the rule of law doesn't necessarily make unscrupulous people ethical. If not skirting the law, these ethically unfit often seek out and thrive on unjust situations which no law yet addresses… to ultimately require yet more laws be passed. Again, this isn’t the lawmakers fault but the unethical… although legislators almost always go too far and some laws make matters worse. Whether it is legislating morality or passing laws to punish smokers, the injustices persist. Among these and oblivious to even the Magna Carta, smoking laws ignore the 800 year-old tradition of honoring property rights. And, as evidenced by some successful ballot propositions, the will of the majority riding herd over the will of a minority is also occurring even though majority rule has been proven unjust for centuries. It's an anarchical situation unto itself.

If civilized society collapsed back into anarchy, everything would soon revert back to how it was in ancient times… when veracity and honor kept people alive. For those without these attributes, it was open season. One had to be very careful who they killed however, lest start a blood feud. Often however, few people would care who killed the really bad guys… unless that bad guy belonged to a gang of other bad guys. Nonetheless, anarchy surely did a better job ridding society of scum.

Stuck with civilization now, for better or worse… there are many things we could do to improve it. For one, while the unscrupulous will always be a problem for which civilization can probably do little more, we can do something to improve federal and state governments. A good beginning is to abolish sovereign immunity in order to hold more accountable all public employees and officials. Under the protection of sovereign immunity, government employees have a license to harass, injure or even kill without much fear of retribution. They might only lose their jobs... except, that is, for Border Patrolmen who go to jail for shooting in defense. In a sea of outrageousness, this outrageous situation is often overlooked.

As far as self-serving public institutions, forever empire building, term limits is the remedy. Remarkably simple, institutions might then focus more on serving the public. However, if we really wanted a progressive state, a more ideal state... then nobody over 30 should ever be in management. Most have an especial 'coolness'... the only demeanor in the world with honorable attributes.

Living under anarchy

While it wouldn't last long, living under anarchy would probably be a nightmare for city folks but otherwise workable in rural areas for those with a 'country' mindset. Depending on how a nation became 're-civilized', once again family farmers might then take their natural place as the economic backbone. Anarchy or liberalism wouldn't last long because 'organizing' would always remain a threat. People would be forever scheming to join forces and become more powerful. Civilization and its stringent laws would be made inevitable once again.

The extent of problems would depend largely on the type of neighbors and who might frequent the vicinity. It would be perilous for perhaps decades because, like a bathtub not having been cleaned for years, society has allowed a buildup of scum (the unfit). Aside from the natural-born scum, the hypocritical nature of civilized society creates even more. One reason, but certainly not the only one, is that specified penalties are less a deterrent than the fear of the unknown. The idea of getting bushwhacked at any time is a worse scenario than reporting to prison on a given day.

So, whether getting hacked to death by a savage or getting blown to bits by a mortar round... they're both gauntlets.

In the end, civilized societies are nothing more than anarchy with legal recourse. When wars occur, this indicates society has re-embraced the purity of anarchy. It's re-embraced every time a war or 'state of emergency' is officially declared. Anarchy is the fallback point… it can always be counted on to solve major problems.

The attributes of civilization and its stutter-step march

Yet, civilization has some excellent attributes not yet mentioned. Knowing the police are but a phone call away is a comforting thought. Roadway traffic is regulated. There is legal recourse for the weak and banking systems make things convenient. There is usually an abundance of food and supplies. It has the ability to provide man with nearly everything he wants, those things which God doesn't provide... and, except for greatly limiting his freedoms, has made life much more comfortable.

Even though the question is now academic as to whether the benefits from being civilized outweigh absolute freedom, successes are still linked to the freedoms extended. It's relative and cannot be disentangled. Freedom is the foundation on which greatness is built and failure to recognize this is demonstrated by many countries.

While we might often get disgusted with civilization we should take into account it hasn't yet matured. It may take several more centuries before all the bugs are worked out. Apparently 7,000 years isn't enough time. We shouldn’t give up on it just yet... although putting those under thirty in charge would speed things up. The young haven't yet forgotten what justice is all about and their zest for life would equate to better decision-making. It then wouldn't take governments forever to do the right thing.

While progress has often been called the ‘march of civilization’, sometimes it marches in the wrong direction which forces a painstaking correction which usually takes centuries. Although we may be better off than five centuries ago, it's doubtful we're better off than the 19th century. Today's trend of trying to cure all ills of society would eventually require everyone in strait-jackets. Restricting freedom too much ruins the experience of life for everyone. We must be willing to accept some risks otherwise lose the joys of living.

If we're not watchful everyone will be punished for their particular pleasures... like smokers. All dangers could be outlawed like skydiving, mountain climbing, boxing, rodeos, auto racing, football and scuba diving. Such 'political correctness', a term which has elbowed its way into the social arena, says chocolate will be next. Jurisprudence would say that if one danger can be justifiably banned, then all dangers can be justifiably banned. Of course, behind it all are the insurance companies.

Since the absence of a regulating system (anarchy) would be an eternal reality, undeniably representing 'absolute freedom' in the pervasiveness of the spirit world, only the survivability of civilization can be questioned. After all, it's manmade. In this respect, the prospects for America look dismal unless it is willing to revert back to a just system (1950 or earlier). Straitjackets and the failure of societies are historically linked ... keeping in mind 'tolerable' isn't immortal. It is unconscionable that 'unelected ruling authorities' (the establishment) and busybody do-gooders (majority rule) can dictate policy. Its prisons bulging with over two million inmates, America's Stalin-like penalties for non-compliance make it even worse.

Greatly modifying the natural order by over-diluting absolute freedom is foolhardy and doomed to fail because all ethereal matters are intertwined and have equal status. It seem it was forgotten that this single package of realities is immutable and makes things work harmoniously. Tinkering throws it out of balance. Only by being in sync with the natural order can insure long-term survival. The further out of sync, the shorter the prospects become... it's all relative.

A.O. Kime

• Also see our Farm socialism article
• Also see our Anti-establishment article
• Also see our Tobacco Taxation article
• Also see our Rule of Law section

         
     STD LEX  MORE                      METAPHYSICAL CAVEMEN  MORE

This website and contents are explained in our Introduction

>TOP

>HOME

A.O. Kime articles

—AGRICULTURE
  Biocontrols
  Bio-oddities
  DDT ban
  Family farmers
  Family farms
  Farm socialism
  Kansas Settlement

—ANTIQUITY
  American cavemen
  Ancient history
  Ancient pyramids
  Caveman facts
  Caveman story
  Cavemen-cultural
  Charles Darwin
  Cumbemayo
  Evolution
  Kennewick Man
  Montezuma Castle
  Neanderthals
  Pre-Clovis cultures
  Shoofly Village ruins
  Stone Age history
  Stone Age timelines
  Stone Age tools

—METAPHYSICAL
  Bodhisattva
  Death
  Divine intelligence
  Dreams
  Enlightenment
  Ethics
  Guardian angels
  Hope
  Imagination
  Immortality
  Instincts
  Land (the)
  Matrix (real)
  Metaphysics
  Mnemosyne
  Muse
  Phenomena
  Plotinus
  Poetry
  Polytheism
  Semantics
  Sixth sense
  Spiritual soul
  Spirit world
  Subconscious mind
  Suicide
  Supernatural

—SOCIOPOLITICAL
  19th Century
  Arrogance
  Civil wars
  Civilization
  Coolness
  Economic injustices
  Establishment
  Foreign policies
  Freedom
  Globalization
  Grand Jury
  Herodotus
  Int'l Criminal Court
  Majority rule
  Megalomania
  Politesse
  Proposition 203
  Power lust
  Rule of law
  Sovereign immunity
  Tobacco taxation
  War criminals
  World wars

Web Matrix of Mnemosyne

BOOKS by: A.O. Kime by: Guest Authors		AG SERVICES Agribusiness Consulting (Southwestern U.S.)
ARIZONA DIRECTORIES Agribusiness Bookstores Publishers Nurseries Western Apparel		COLLEGE DIRECTORY Arizona  California Colorado  Idaho Montana  Nevada New Mexico  Oregon Utah  Washington Wyoming

ARTICLES by: A.O. Kime by: Guest Authors		WRITING SERVICES Freelancing Rent-A-Article
ARTICLES Agriculture  Antiquity Commentary  Gardening Phenomena  Philosophy Political Issues Social Issues Guest Articles		OTHER Divine Intellect Esotericism Famous Quotations Int'l Criminal Court War Criminals Poetry - Metapoetry

NEW... (Dec 18, 2007) see our latest article The Search for Neanderthals in North America

Don't forget to visit our Guest Authors Showcase

Advertise on this website

Send email to  allen@matrixbookstore.com  with questions or comments about this website.

Last modified: 05/05/08