1
   

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

 
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 09:05 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
what would you have, stagnation, a slow death of impotency that would drag on across the decades until the human race is nothing but a breed of welfare queens who look back on the days of old when we knew how to strive for what we wanted, and then to achieve it. This greed you villainize is ambition, and without it, the greatest minds and peoples in the world would have never influenced events. Napoleon would have stayed in corsica or remained an artillery commander in the army. Ceasar and Augustus would have stayed in italy rather than bring civilization to all of europe. There will always be those who are afraid of growth, and those who will embrace growth, and those who direct growth, and those who direct it are our governments and our saving graces
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:28 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus;42850 wrote:
There will always be those who are afraid of growth, and those who will embrace growth, and those who direct growth, and those who direct it are our governments and our saving graces.


While I am against the idea of anarchy, I think it is unwise to call government "our saving grace". We people have to be our own saving grace. Government is there out of necessity.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

--Thomas Paine
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 10:50 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
in other news,

people think they can amalgamate anarchy and democracy, but as far as true anarchy is concerned, democracy is still tyranny. Many anarchists in the US are outraged by our government and the actions of our directly elected officials (excluding the president) and by infrastructure i mean a system of communication such as the postal service, the internet, or a system of transportation, or, unless the entire world goes anarchaic, a system of defence from our "brethren"


If you use the current United States definition of "democracy" then yes, democracy is a tyranny. The main idea of anarchy is that communities will form out of necessity. And because of this formation decisions will necessarily have to be made between different agents. Therefore, the people make decisions for themselves (i.e. democracy).
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:08 am
charles brough wrote:
Seems to me the whole issue is flawed. We are evolved primates instinctively geared to live in small groups. It is impossible for us to function in huge societies without government. That is why we have had a government in every country in every civilization for the last 5,000 years!

Anyone who does not want a government can only find small tribes like we humans had in prehistory, ones with communal living and a town-hall-like process of settling issues. There are religious communes like that, but is that the way you want to live?

charles
the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* *


Personally, I would rather live that way, but I don't get what leads you to such a dichotomy. Human biology is not the end all of politics.

Even if it were, it is also human nature to use ones rational faculties to promote one's way of life.
0 Replies
 
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:10 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
what would you have, stagnation, a slow death of impotency that would drag on across the decades until the human race is nothing but a breed of welfare queens who look back on the days of old when we knew how to strive for what we wanted, and then to achieve it. This greed you villainize is ambition, and without it, the greatest minds and peoples in the world would have never influenced events. Napoleon would have stayed in corsica or remained an artillery commander in the army. Ceasar and Augustus would have stayed in italy rather than bring civilization to all of europe. There will always be those who are afraid of growth, and those who will embrace growth, and those who direct growth, and those who direct it are our governments and our saving graces



And our governments are directing growth in their best interests, not ours.

I was never very good at team sports. I am very aggressive in obtaining my goals. This means that anyone or anything in my way was to be removed with whatever force was most effecient. This is why I started doing sports which were completely independent. Skating for instance. I still skate with others and help others to grow in the sport but, just like them, I am completely responsible for my own growth. I can be taught by the best but I have to be willing to put forth everything I have.

I have done the same in society. I am not a very good team player so now I am the entire project from requirements analysis to implementation. I can handle the entire process myself. People like me do not belong to your governments because people like me see them as an obstacle. They prevent me from doing all that I desire and they are an immovable stone in the road of progress. The fact of the matter is that governments force others to confine to rules created out of reaction to someone elses mistakes.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:22 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Please dont vomit it gives you heart burn for days....Uniformity ahh the classless societies dream or nightmmare..UNIFORMITY..what does it mean to you ? for me it means equal opportunity equal ability through education the great levelers..it does not mean the individual characteristics merge in to one slob of humanity we can still afford our rebels our nutters.


Uniformity of means and treatment is pretty much a universal trait of systems of justice. On this we agree.

I just challenge you to maintain this under a state. I have explained why there is incentive for the state to pander to one group over another.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 11:26 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
While I am against the idea of anarchy, I think it is unwise to call government "our saving grace". We people have to be our own saving grace. Government is there out of necessity.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

--Thomas Paine


I can tolerate supporters of the state like this. You will come around as you realize the state is unnecessary.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 12:57 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;42896 wrote:
I can tolerate supporters of the state like this. You will come around as you realize the state is unnecessary.


Your conception of this anarchistic society is appealing, but I have yet to be convinced of its ability for practical application and longevity. As long as people have a desire to gain power and influence (and overpower others), they will form states and governments to maintain and grow their power. These communities that you discuss, without some form of absolute rule, will be unable to compete with the governed states, politically. This is why, throughout our history, these smaller communities were (and continue to be) wiped out by the larger states.

I view government with disdain, as the necessary evil. I don't think we can afford to do away with it entirely, so I would hope for it to shrink in power and size, and to become "better", and more just.

It would be nice to prove T. Jefferson's fears about the new republic wrong when he noted:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Unfortunately, it seems that he is right: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground".
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 01:42 pm
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
what would you have, stagnation, a slow death of impotency that would drag on across the decades until the human race is nothing but a breed of welfare queens who look back on the days of old when we knew how to strive for what we wanted, and then to achieve it. This greed you villainize is ambition, and without it, the greatest minds and peoples in the world would have never influenced events. Napoleon would have stayed in corsica or remained an artillery commander in the army. Ceasar and Augustus would have stayed in italy rather than bring civilization to all of europe. There will always be those who are afraid of growth, and those who will embrace growth, and those who direct growth, and those who direct it are our governments and our saving graces
Why if every one attains their full potential would it create a welfare state of half nits..With your attitude the masses we see now being schooled would be back in the fields with no education.I think the world would have been better of without Napoleon but thats not to say in a fair society we would not have high attainers, it would only be greed that falls fowl of my dreamed of society.Growth is the enemy of us all , it creates the wildernesses we see where there was once forests , multinationals deciding our future..bigger and better cars to guzzle more oil..the third world becoming less able to cope with western demands..no keep your rat eat rat world .
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 02:22 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Your conception of this anarchistic society is appealing, but I have yet to be convinced of its ability for practical application and longevity. As long as people have a desire to gain power and influence (and overpower others), they will form states and governments to maintain and grow their power. These communities that you discuss, without some form of absolute rule, will be unable to compete with the governed states, politically. This is why, throughout our history, these smaller communities were (and continue to be) wiped out by the larger states.


There is no such thing as absolute rule.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 04:03 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power;42917 wrote:
There is no such thing as absolute rule.


Poor choice of words...I meant without having a set of laws. Laws are absolute, as written, forcing most people to adhere to certain minimum standards while conducting themselves in society.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 08:06 am
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Poor choice of words...I meant without having a set of laws. Laws are absolute, as written, forcing most people to adhere to certain minimum standards while conducting themselves in society.


What competitive advantages do you see governed states having over anarchistic states?

There is a tendency for people to look at anarchy as another animal altogether from state systems of political structure. I have been trying to portray anarchism as one extreme of the spectrum, rather than off the spectrum altogether. It requires that one looks at the spectrum not as a matter of state structure but of governance and acceptance there of.

When looked at this way you have anarchism on one side and extreme totalitarianism on the other, with varying levels of liberal democracy, fascism, state socialism and other systems laying about in the middle.

Doing so allows me to contrast existing systems that resemble the anarchistic mindset and model against others.

The best model I could use for this comparison would be that of WWII. When we examine the states that collided during this war we see the highly centralized and authoritarian axis states and the USSR contrasted by the decentralized and far less authoritarian Western countries. America at the start of the war, due mainly to its decentralized nature, was woefully weak compared to the other states. Yet within a matter of a few years, it was outproducing the rest of the world combined.

This is the nature of modern society, the division of labor, and freedom. When people are allowed to create value in themselves, they do, and they do so by providing value to society at large. A nation of slaves simply cannot compete with a nation of free men, and, since men are only free when they understand and value their freedom above all, aggression against a society of free men will bring devastation upon the aggressors.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 09:27 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
1- we outproduced because our government was able to provide enough incentive for our factories to produce sherman tanks at the same rate they had produced model t's
2- people often think of the US as a failing, corrupt system full of politicians who work only for the kickbacks and bribes. While there are some who exemplify such charachteristics, these are the minority. The majority of the system is uncomprimised but simply restricted by beurocracy, if there was no corruption, you would claim that there was no representation, because what is corruption but the exchange of support for legislative power. You pin all the corruption on the coorporations, but the real defilers are the ones who keep trying to get reelected and so they do either nothing or they cover their collective asses to the point where anything they do happen to push through takes longer than a glacier race.
3: Perhaps your anarchaic state could work on a small scale, that seems to be the case in most third world countries, but how can a system work when its responsibilities (maintain order, keep the world connected, provide public service) outweigh its resources (no ability to set strictures and laws, no ability to collect taxes, no money to spend on infrastructure or personell) this may very well work in the primative system of small bushmen communities, but for the approximately 3-4 billion people living in the 21st century, such a system wouldnt last 5 days. Maybe you would like to return to our primitive forbearers way of life, but in doing so you would kill billions of people, because without our industrialized way of life, the vast majority of the world would starve to death. A place where farmers cant sell their crops because there is no rule save the farmers gun to prevent miscreants from picking what they need by night, or a place where we stay in our birth communities for life because there is no regulation on the roads, airways, trains or waters, leading to accidents and disrepair. You call government a necesary evil, but there is NO way society could exist without it. Necesary yes, but is something that vital really evil.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
1- we outproduced because our government was able to provide enough incentive for our factories to produce sherman tanks at the same rate they had produced model t's


All governments directed their production towards military output. It was the general production capabilities, as well as the skill and flexibility that came from searching out competitive advantages that distinguished the American war machine.


Quote:
3: Perhaps your anarchaic state could work on a small scale, that seems to be the case in most third world countries, but how can a system work when its responsibilities (maintain order, keep the world connected, provide public service)


Under an anarchistics system, there is no state to bear this responsibility. That responsibility lies upon those who need it.

Quote:
Maybe you would like to return to our primitive forbearers way of life, but in doing so you would kill billions of people, because without our industrialized way of life, the vast majority of the world would starve to death. A place where farmers cant sell their crops because there is no rule save the farmers gun to prevent miscreants from picking what they need by night, or a place where we stay in our birth communities for life because there is no regulation on the roads, airways, trains or waters, leading to accidents and disrepair. You call government a necesary evil, but there is NO way society could exist without it. Necesary yes, but is something that vital really evil.


You seem to only recognize certain parts of modern society. Farmers have various methods for protecting their crops. Private defense firms, insurance, etc.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:20 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Private armies to protect those who can afford it..oh my oh my..Give up, your world of anarchy is looking more and more like the end of civilisation ,not the start of something new.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 12:42 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Private armies to protect those who can afford it..oh my oh my..Give up, your world of anarchy is looking more and more like the end of civilisation ,not the start of something new.


And your ability for abstract thinking appears to be far too limited for this conversation. If you cannot expand your view past the limitations placed upon society by states, then you will never understand.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 01:02 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
And your ability for abstract thinking appears to be far too limited for this conversation. If you cannot expand your view past the limitations placed upon society by states, then you will never understand.
Im commenting on your post ive decided its a fruitless task debating when you have such entrenched opinions.You can give no positive examples of this Divine state and can give no assurances that the weak ,who you appear to despise will not be protected .So what is the point of stating my opinions over and over again.Ill just wave my red flag at the McCarthy's.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 03:56 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Im commenting on your post ive decided its a fruitless task debating when you have such entrenched opinions.You can give no positive examples of this Divine state and can give no assurances that the weak ,who you appear to despise will not be protected .So what is the point of stating my opinions over and over again.Ill just wave my red flag at the McCarthy's.


Derision for not being able to provide concrete examples is pretty humorous when coming from a communist. At least anarchy has failed because of statist forces to this point. State communism has been extremely efficient at producing disastrous results without any help. I'd say its right at 100% in terms of absolute failure.

Also I do not despise the weak, I merely do not have the elitist's desire to determine who is weak and decide just how to force them and everyone else to correct those deficiencies.

It should be very apparent to anyone that I have a much more profound respect for the "weak" than most.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 04:14 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Derision for not being able to provide concrete examples is pretty humorous when coming from a communist. At least anarchy has failed because of statist forces to this point. State communism has been extremely efficient at producing disastrous results without any help. I'd say its right at 100% in terms of absolute failure.

Also I do not despise the weak, I merely do not have the elitist's desire to determine who is weak and decide just how to force them and everyone else to correct those deficiencies.

It should be very apparent to anyone that I have a much more profound respect for the "weak" than most.
I dont to propose we accept my communist example without scrutiny . The problem i have is your proposing this anarchy will not protect the weak, in fact you admire the opportunity to deny them a future in your wonderland of the brave and determined. There has never been a true communist state but it has high ideals unlike your rat eat rat anarchistic realm of the high achievers.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2009 05:10 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
1- does anyone else see the whole pot/kettle humor of an anarchist and a communist fighting
2- i grew up on a farm, one of the few family farms left in existance, my father was statistically one of the hardest working, productive people in the world and he barely had enough money to keep the farm in repair, never mind hire security forces, even the huge operations that could afford it, they would be like Mexico/US border gaurds as far as efficiency
3- Those who need it, that includes you, me, and anyone who regularly uses the internet, drives, or sends letters. And almost every one of them isn't stupid enough to take the worlds burden on their shoulders for no reason other than no one else will do it. Its the little red hen situation minus the privitized reward
4- government subsidies are half the reason the us was ever able to sustain growth, and today, our railroad and agricultural systems would have died out in the 70s were it not for government subsidies
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.29 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 01:24:01