I speculate, we should enrich our idea of society with the idea of nomadism.
Living in cities is one of the biggest and brightest problems in the world nowadays.
A nomadic humanity is incapable of destroying the world as we “city people” do right now
Nomadism solves the problem of overpopulation (if there is any problem with that).
No, this is not a NeoNazi Blog where we preach population issues.
Overpopulation here means, masses of humans, in one place, totally incapable of keeping themselves alive in the place and with the place they live in.
Nomadism removes war, constant-growth and garbage-producing societies by itself, because a nomadic society is unable to build the structures allowing people to live longer than naturally possible. Nomads are unable to build the systems and infrastructure needed to run a War at large distance and time.
The “Use and Throw” (garbage) culture is a classic effect of modern consumerism (due to falsely assume abundance) and capitalistic oriented (and static) individuals, not nomads.
Often, nomadism is seen as a return to the StoneAge, all shepherds and savanna right?
As we know, humans have lived for a long time in their history as nomads, in small (anarchistic) “tribes”.
Nomads cannot store a lot of things in safe city walls, they need to travel light 🙂
Nomads carry what they own, and own what they can carry. They go where the food goes, they don’t make the food come to where they are.
Excessive cultivation of the soil by capitalistic and globalistic oriented agriculture, and the abundance of hoarded food, allows the sedentary to survive over inhospitable times and locations. However, it destroys the environment, it sucks it’s energy out until it’s gone. Nomadism instead leaves the system to re-build and does not over-use it at once.
The lack of stable, save long-term food supplies in a nomadic world diminishes the ability to run wars.
War is as a pro-profit action requiring a “base and supply” of food and killing tools. Nomads cannot have that, it requires settlements.
Even the most basic “interest” in a “war for profit” dissolves by itself in a nomadic society – because there is no value to be hollowed out by the opponent, except people.
A nomad does not have a richness to be stolen, no land to be taken.
Enslaving those people is no option either:
A nomad would not have the stocks to feed those slaves.
The nomad is better off if he does not steal and enslave. By nature, by intuition, there is no written rule required – it’s natural and rational.
The order of a society in Nomadism is strongly tied to the laws that govern life on earth, not human laws.
If there where no Government, no Police, no Taxes, we would have Anarchy! You’d see murders and atrocious acts like back in Stone(d)Age!
Some Random Idiot, You’ve all heard them…
Anarchy, in what in German we call the “Urgedanke” (original thought), has nothing to do with chaos and destruction, murders and atrocious acts, it is on the contrary a well-organized society, where each individual has his own responsibility and authority.
In recent centuries, anarchism has been the scene of terrorist bombings, and in the last decade, bored people, mostly from the rich upper classes and some other stoned idiots, have taken advantage of anarchy as a means for a Saturday night party, or just to let off some steam on a manifestation.
Anarchism, in truth, is a very old political and social idea, putting the individual being in control – and as such, should be brought closer to the society and demystified.
It is (by accident) the probably oldest social form of human society, and has been more and more demonized by the emerging ruling classes, but has in fact brought Humanity thru millennia of struggle.
Anarchy is what happens when catastrophes hit a country, and the Governments are out of service. Then, neighboring is suddenly a thing. This, is anarchy.
Anarchy is what happens in a family, where everyone has a role, well defined, and thou no one has a total power over any one else.
Anarchy is what happens when we want the same piece of meat, and either share, or don’t.
Yes, anarchy can mean brutal, natural struggle where the stronger may – in some cases – eradicate the weaker.
Let me remind you that no law ever made by humans has ever successfully stopped strong killing weak.
Our modern human rules may be successful in punishing after any prohibited act is done – it however cannot avoid the act to happen. The absence of such written rule hence would have no impact at all.
Anarchy means the absence of domination, not the absence of social order, for there is another adequate expression: Anomie.
Absence of domination (Anarchy) does not mean that there is no order (Anomie), that no law enforces its power, and so on.
It simply means, no one can permanently misuse power to produce obedience to commands from others and justify this with a socially accepted rule.
An anarchistic system respects laws that can not be broken by anything or anyone, because they are given by the circumstances, because they are laws, not rules.
These laws, do not need a ruling class to enforce them – because they are self-appealing and performing by their nature.
Any rule, that needs a clarification, a guardian and a statement is not a law. A law does not need any of this. An Anarchy, is the only political and social philosophy that takes this in account, and respects those laws, reads them, and formulates (unwritten) rules that allow the society to prosper within.
That’s right. Anarchy does not need a law book to avoid mass murder. Law books don’t avoid mass murder. Circumstances do.
Any act, aimed to break a real, anarchistic law is not possible per definition.
A law cannot be broken. A rule can be broken.
Most of us claim to be free human beings.
If this is not the case, we usually strive for measures that (should) free us.
Some of us, see their freedom threatened.
Others want to preserve it, others still want to get it.
Numerous measures have been taken throughout history in the name of freedom.
Different, defined systems of freedom have developed.
All have one thing in common:
– the respective freedom of each individual is clearly defined
– it is assumed that a threat from outside the system could/will restrict that freedom.
Even though the individual systems define and execute freedom very differently, they still have and well the following in common:
– The order of the respective system consists of the definitions and limits of the respective freedom.
– The systems are kept in order by the certainty of being able to live and continue to live as their respective limits and ideas of freedom demand / permit.
The system gains security through the control of its members and their freedom.
Control means successful searching and warding off threats to order and security.
Control also means directing or successfully manipulating something in favor of the controller.
Control, in this case, is only possible if it is clearly defined what exactly the goal or the definition and limit of freedom are.
The systems usually create several or fewer rules that describe the limits and definitions of the respective freedom.
These rules imply restrictions on freedom, which in turn entail more rules, which in turn should guarantee freedom.
Since it is not easy to control the chaos, the systems maintain their order.
Well, those examples of our species that rely on their freedom have at the same time taken on a number of restrictions of freedom that are supposed to guarantee the continued existence of the chosen form of freedom.
Paradoxically, the individual in such a system usually gives the responsibility over his freedom to someone or something, mostly volunteers.
Often they demand, yes kill, to decide for themselves who and what controls them, provides security and defines order and freedom.
Voluntarily, they give away their freedom to other people to be controlled and guaranteed.
They can be controlled by a more or less strict order, which they sometimes even defined themselves.
Believing that they are now free, they can be led by shepherds again and again in the same field until the shepherd is killed or replaced ….
The sheep should realize that they will gain boundless freedom without a shepherd and without a fence.
That order ensures control, which in turn gives security.
Security of those systems that use their rules to curtail freedom.
The systems that they create and experience themselves.
In order to break up these systems and dissolve the individuals out of them, the order must be broken.
To accomplish this, the security of the system, to be able to continue as it is,
has to be shaken.
And their members must realize that they are not boundlessly free, but could be.
The security of the system, guaranteed to use its limited freedoms, must be shaken to move the individual from his irresponsible apathetic attitude to action.
They should realize that they are all free, but that freedom is not a law, but something changeable that depends heavily on how one interacts with it.
Freedom is not an object, but rather the state of something or more precisely:
the sum of the possibilities that an individual has to define his own condition.
Shepherds define freedom and ensure order and security. If the shepherd can no longer guarantee this, it follows that the system dependent sheep probably bless the time, while the rest have to use their freedom themselves.