One can wonder why I ask such question here? well, partially because my love of dolphins lead me conclusion ..I definitely very much dislike to be told/forced(literally) to behave like asshole towards them...by whatever authority.
So, for some time now we (I and friend, actually) discuss few impliciations of living without hierarchical overtones (quite un-natural for humans, but this is the point!). He pointed me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_autonomous_zone for example ..so, this set me thinking.... From time to time I read here lines like 'but imagine if your animal lover was just taken from you and killed'. This sucks, obviously. But why humans must continue to respect authority in this case? Can't they at least try to hide ..ones they actually love?
But...my question not so much about having balls to resist authority in acute violent conflict, but about....living in human community where hier thing at least recognized as danger. Anyone tried this, may be in early post-school years?
Note, I don't mean anarchism as political-only, hm, orientation, but mostly as way of life, something you try to live 100% of your waking up time ...
Anarchism is the only way. Too many people are allowed to hoard all of the resources, leaving the less fortunate such as myself to suffer in the dark.
The Enemy at the Gates film made it clear.
There is no New Man and there can never be. Even if you remove money and turn society to Communism, there will always be something to envy from your neighbor. There will be people rich in health and poor in health. Rich in love and poor in love.
The guy who says this gets shot in the head by a sniper about ten seconds later.
This is really interesting (and universally-important?) question, for me ... How much humans can change/workaround themselves, considering apparently unremovable (and probably impossible to remove without complete remaking us - but then those will be quite different beings with their own set of problems and quests to solve them...) limitations set by our shared (with apes, but not only) nature? So, question about being honest surface again..because it seems a lot of good and important talk today not backed by honest actions..how one can expect different humans emerge in such atmosphere? Apparently, parents (biological or cultural) need to maintain their honesty for at least, hm, 15 years? And not fail dead after this period, too ...
By a zoo's very nature they are bucking the trend of society, MOST places do not accept us and those that do are only accepting as it's far as not having a direct law but that doesn't mean we can't be charged with something.
Forming something like a PAZ is a good way to draw VERY bad attention. We would be on the level of something like Waco, just Image how the news would spin a place that was occupied by us and that we were claiming it's an autonomous zone.
Let's not get ourselves killed for treason.
And the places that have no direct law, like Texas and Nevada, are currently trying to ban it in those places. There is an active effort (notably in the U.S.) to ban sex with animals everywhere.
Unless it's out in the ocean somehwere
sealand!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
First thing I thought of.
Wonder if there could be a zoo version of Sealand.
Personally, I'd prefer a zoo version of Rapture, ala the Bioshock series of video games, just for the sheer awesomeness.
Andrew Ryan said it best in that game, it could equally apply to a zoo city state
"It was not impossible to build Rapture on the Sea Floor... it was impossible to build it anywhere else"
Gimme a couple billion, I'll see what I can do.
I disagree with this idea that anarchism would lead to a better situation for zoos than the present one. While I agree that government intervention can force a zoo into jail for something harmless (an unjust situation to be sure), I fear that in the absence of law there would be essentially no protection of basic rights. If the surrounding community found out about your love for animals, there would be no incentive for concerned citizens not to raze your lands and beat you or even kill you. At least under a government, the punishment is known and can be slowly changed over time: with anarchy there is no such possibility.
As far as "practical" anarchism goes, getting off the grid and independent of the larger society, I like the idea and see it as safer for individuals overall. But in the long term it makes zoos more "foreign" to others and lessens the odds of eventual acceptance. I take a different approach: integrate as fully as possible with people around me, and slowly reveal my feelings to those I trust. In this way, even if I am caught and prosecuted, I have friends to help me through and pick up the pieces of my shattered life.
Not absence of the law generally, but an absence of laws wrongfully banning sex with animals -- that (the latter) would be better.
A hostile anti-zoo government is no better than anarchy: it means zoos being "punished" for "crimes" that should not even be "crimes" to begin with. And the government can seize a zoo's pets. At least with no government, there would not be an authority that could arbitrarily take one's pets away based on "moral" laws.
The authority, in this case, is whichever well-armed asshole or group of asshole decides to take matters into their own hands and kill degenerates like us. There are limits in a liberal democracy to punishment, but no such limits can exist in an anarchist system, by definition: any attempt to maintain such limits is a form of government.
well, standing against superior (in terms of raw, 'brute' power) force apparently another relatively weak point in anarchism by definition - less-thinking (to put it this way..) humans organized as Big Dumb Band quite effective for making destructive activity ....but again, making even this kind of organized attack makes sense only if you have something desirable, holy wars of course exist, but are humans really have nothing better to do than chase few other humans half-country away? (or even 50km away)? Also, with more armed population - like in USA - it can be imagined ppl will not go out completely ..unprepared for such way of outside living...sure, I for example will not shot anyone simple because I have low vision (myopic) - but then I learned to avoid most of even potential conflicts...? This is not exactly world from 'Postman" book .....
Anarchism (disobeying authority) is probably done by practicing zoos in areas where having sex with animals illegal. They might disobey authority, in that regard, because they view laws banning sex with animals as illegitimate and discriminatory.
Anarchy is the oldest political system. So yeah, it has been tried in practice.
If you mean "in modern times", and are talking about a modern variation of it, there was an attempt at anarcho-syndicalism in the South of Europe that ended up very badly in the 20th Century.
Running what they call an agorist "distributed nation" would sort of work, but those are not attempts at dethroning the State. They are rather the creation of networks of citizens that establish underground channels of distribution of supplies and services in order to guarantee that you can get them even if an oppressive State does not want you to get them. SEKIII thought that such a network of citizens would eventually grow so strong that it could overthrow the economic system imposed by the Government, but the power of agorist networks is limited in practice. There are known cases of agorist networks that overtook certain sections of the economy, but not the full State.
U don't have to destroy the government just make it smaller. The government has no place being in peoples beed rooms. Especially if its harmless. Support people in government parties who want to make the government smaller.