1
   

What Is Your Problem With Anarchy?

 
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:46 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
sir, you are right to assume i live in fear of the loss of control

that would be because in all past incidents where anarchy has reigned for even a short time, it has been a massive bloodbath, the best example that comes to mind would be the french revolution, although the bolsheivik revolution and post roman europe also come to mind, we live in fear because as mr Zetetic claimed, your system of "everyone will respect each other and look out for themselves" only works in theory, self determination, as you advocate, leads to dissidence and strife, there can be only one system in place within a given geographic zone, and since anarchy is proven not to work, there realy only is no other option


Those "incidents where anarchy has reigned" were hardly anarchistic. Despite the lack of a single established government, anarchy doesn't reign when two or more governmental systems clash.

Refer to my last post. Anarchy is marked by the opposition to state control, not by the lack of state control.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 03:44 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
Heres my question. Why is this not an important goal, when creating a system of control(government)?


Exactly. Checking power is the most important part of any political system. I don't see why only anarchy would fall victim to those who would exploit power.

Apparently nobody has really paid any attention to the history of the state.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:37 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
sir, please do not sidestep the topic, we are not discussing patriotism and its cause, nationalism has not once entered this debate, what we are discussing is how to stop a moneybags and a company of mercs from taking over in the power vacuum that anarchy would bring. All it would take is a modern day rockefeller with the desire to impose his will, and though some people are more valuable free than as slaves, the vast majority would do perfectly as bondsmen. As you anarchists like to call them, the turbid masses and repressed proleterait. There will be ordenence, whether at the hands of councils or tyrants, humanity will regulate itself, it is in our nature. The idea of a truly lawless society is repugnant to the vast majority of us, and we will do whatever we must to preserve the social order, secondly, i support mr zetetic wholeheartedly, how, in a society like ours, would the major infrastructure be built and maintained without some kind of governing civil body. Roads are not cheap.
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 09:40 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
and as to the previous incidents of pseudo anarchy, you are correct, they are not anarchy in its pure form, but if an entire nation of oppressed laborers rises up and, while still clinging to the vestiges of an old system, murder and usher in chaos, i shudder to ponder what would happen if all civil inhibitions were removed. In such ungoverned circumstances, the innocent masses are a ticking time bomb, just waiting to exibit the more base nature of humanity
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:02 am
@nicodemus,
I can imagine a hundred people marooned on a desert island..how would anarchy work in these circumstances..Remember i only know the characters of those who may influence this situation..Let the anarchists give their picture.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:21 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
sir, please do not sidestep the topic, we are not discussing patriotism and its cause, nationalism has not once entered this debate, what we are discussing is how to stop a moneybags and a company of mercs from taking over in the power vacuum that anarchy would bring. All it would take is a modern day rockefeller with the desire to impose his will, and though some people are more valuable free than as slaves, the vast majority would do perfectly as bondsmen. As you anarchists like to call them, the turbid masses and repressed proleterait. There will be ordenence, whether at the hands of councils or tyrants, humanity will regulate itself, it is in our nature. The idea of a truly lawless society is repugnant to the vast majority of us, and we will do whatever we must to preserve the social order, secondly, i support mr zetetic wholeheartedly, how, in a society like ours, would the major infrastructure be built and maintained without some kind of governing civil body. Roads are not cheap.


I am fairly sure this has been discussed at length.

First, there are few anarchists who believe that such inequities of wealth would exist under an anarchistic system. True competition simply wouldn't facilitate such a thing. The anarchist, and I can provide ample reasoning behind this if it is deemed necessary, points to the state and its protectionism of statist beneficiaries as the source of this wealth gap. Economic might facilitates political might, and political might facilitates economic might. Economic might is a natural quality and necessary to free human life, so we focus on the political might of the state, and thereby combat all unnatural might.

Whats more, preference for fair treatment and revolt against unfair treatment has been documented as a natural behavior in our closest evolutionary relatives, so it is hard to believe that free men would be very tolerant of such wealth aggregation. Simply accruing such wealth may be so costly as to make it undesirable.

So again, it is placing primacy on the uncovering, fulfilling, and defending one's individual values and opposing the imposition of external values that marks the anarchist.

Since you concentrated on a parenthetical aside and not the meat of my explanation, I don't think you are quite grasping what I am getting at. Because of this, I will resubmit a question that was originally rhetorical, but now begs a real answer:

How do we avoid a worse state than what we have currently?
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:29 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
and as to the previous incidents of pseudo anarchy, you are correct, they are not anarchy in its pure form, but if an entire nation of oppressed laborers rises up and, while still clinging to the vestiges of an old system, murder and usher in chaos, i shudder to ponder what would happen if all civil inhibitions were removed. In such ungoverned circumstances, the innocent masses are a ticking time bomb, just waiting to exibit the more base nature of humanity


If you had read the links I provided concerning agorism, you would know that I do not support violent revolution.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:29 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
... love to toss in a side note here if I may; [INDENT]Regarding the OP summation of Anarchy's definition (that being the least or no government) I'll toss in this contrast: For a collection of people who acted in the way I believe humans should interact; hell yea! Sign me up!
[/INDENT]Unfortunately, I believe I'm compromised by the fact that I believe so many people wouldn't. I imagine the hovel in which I live, in a land bereft of any governmental protections, services or 'guarantees' and I feel fear. Rational or not, this is my conception of the issue.

Thanks
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:41 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I can imagine a hundred people marooned on a desert island..how would anarchy work in these circumstances..Remember i only know the characters of those who may influence this situation..Let the anarchists give their picture.


If you are wondering how anarchy would work if modern society broke down along with the rules, you ask me to answer for a straw man. I propose a memetic evolution to society resulting in a new regard for laws and rules, not a tearing down of society.

If you are wondering how anarchy would work amongst a small isolated band of people, you ask me a question I cannot answer. The social structures and norms of societies are heavily dependent upon the resources and needs experienced by the members of the society. In short, how their society would work would be dependent upon the island and the values of those marooned there. What I can say, however, is that the anthropological record would point to a more or less anarchistic manner to social structure, and may even point to a more satisfying lifestyle than that provided by our modern society.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:48 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
... love to toss in a side note here if I may;
[INDENT]Regarding the OP summation of Anarchy's definition (that being the least or no government) I'll toss in this contrast: For a collection of people who acted in the way I believe humans should interact; hell yea! Sign me up!
[/INDENT]Unfortunately, I believe I'm compromised by the fact that I believe so many people wouldn't. I imagine the hovel in which I live, in a land bereft of any governmental protections, services or 'guarantees' and I feel fear. Rational or not, this is my conception of the issue.

Thanks

Then you should feel fear now for there is no true protection from the government. If someone wants to kill you, the government is not going to stop them, only catch them later. If the government could protect us then there would be no murder, theft, violence.

No, our government does not protect us. It merely comes in and cleans up the mess once the deed is done. They are not gaurdians, they are maids. Poor maids at that considering that in many societies, the ones creating the mess get away with it on legal loop holes.

The fact of the matter is that no one has killed you because you have not provoked anyone to do so. No one has robbed you because you have not created a situation in which someone desires what you have more than you do. No one has committed a violent act against you because you have not committed one against them. Anarchy is no different. The golden rule still applies. As a matter of fact, it is imperative. A categorical imperative you might say Laughing.


I can understand why you are all afraid. But tell me something. You asked what would prevent another Rockefeller from popping up... Well your system of 'government' didn't prevent the first one. As a matter of fact, if you are a student of history at all then you would know that the government actually supported the growth of the Rockefeller empire. So tell me where the balance in YOUR system is. Tell me what prevent a violent uprising right now? Through out history violent revolutions have been CAUSED by governments and their over abundance of power. You mention all of these events in relation to anarchy and yet each one has occured under the blanket and as a direct effect of your "government". When you have someone trying to struggle for power in a system where everyone is equal save for their level of determination, someone else will topple them. It will not be a struggle between nations as it is now. There would be no threat of nukes and bombs and rockets wiping out entire cities. It would be a struggle between a few men and even then, more likely to be settled on a bet than for any of those men to risk their lives. Think about it... would you fight someone knowing it was more than likely to the death or would you try to come to terms in a wager or by some other means?

Your problem with anarchy is fear. You are currently settled in a false sense of security thinking that your almighty government will protect you. They can't and won't. You are a number on a tax form. Without you, there is another XXX,000,000 people that they are concerned with. If you get murdered and the murderer is thrown in jail, you're still dead. You were not protected, only avenged and poorly at that.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:50 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
... love to toss in a side note here if I may;[INDENT]Regarding the OP summation of Anarchy's definition (that being the least or no government) I'll toss in this contrast: For a collection of people who acted in the way I believe humans should interact; hell yea! Sign me up!
[/INDENT]Unfortunately, I believe I'm compromised by the fact that I believe so many people wouldn't. I imagine the hovel in which I live, in a land bereft of any governmental protections, services or 'guarantees' and I feel fear. Rational or not, this is my conception of the issue.

Thanks


Imposing anarchy upon a society manipulated and formed by the violence of an entrenched elite would be a fearful state.
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:53 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Imposing anarchy upon a society manipulated and formed by the violence of an entrenched elite would be a fearful state.

My answer was longer but then you had to trump it by creating a new page. :p

Meany.
0 Replies
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 09:20 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Then you should feel fear now for there is no true protection from the government. If someone wants to kill you, the government is not going to stop them, only catch them later. If the government could protect us then there would be no murder, theft, violence.

No, our government does not protect us. It merely comes in and cleans up the mess once the deed is done. They are not gaurdians, they are maids. Poor maids at that considering that in many societies, the ones creating the mess get away with it on legal loop holes.

The fact of the matter is that no one has killed you because you have not provoked anyone to do so. No one has robbed you because you have not created a situation in which someone desires what you have more than you do. No one has committed a violent act against you because you have not committed one against them. Anarchy is no different. The golden rule still applies. As a matter of fact, it is imperative. A categorical imperative you might say Laughing.


I can understand why you are all afraid. But tell me something. You asked what would prevent another Rockefeller from popping up... Well your system of 'government' didn't prevent the first one. As a matter of fact, if you are a student of history at all then you would know that the government actually supported the growth of the Rockefeller empire. So tell me where the balance in YOUR system is. Tell me what prevent a violent uprising right now? Through out history violent revolutions have been CAUSED by governments and their over abundance of power. You mention all of these events in relation to anarchy and yet each one has occured under the blanket and as a direct effect of your "government". When you have someone trying to struggle for power in a system where everyone is equal save for their level of determination, someone else will topple them. It will not be a struggle between nations as it is now. There would be no threat of nukes and bombs and rockets wiping out entire cities. It would be a struggle between a few men and even then, more likely to be settled on a bet than for any of those men to risk their lives. Think about it... would you fight someone knowing it was more than likely to the death or would you try to come to terms in a wager or by some other means?

Your problem with anarchy is fear. You are currently settled in a false sense of security thinking that your almighty government will protect you. They can't and won't. You are a number on a tax form. Without you, there is another XXX,000,000 people that they are concerned with. If you get murdered and the murderer is thrown in jail, you're still dead. You were not protected, only avenged and poorly at that.


In order to move Icon's post to the new page I will add this:

When we think about our dependency upon government to provide disincentive and clean-up services regarding violent crime, consider the implications. Government will be responsive to those that facilitate government. Therefore we have a system where those with power (which when one traces the history of western economic development, one sees that it stems from violent appropriation and not fair trade) have the ability to whitewash their crimes and even reward them. Meanwhile, those without political representation can suffer harshly for relatively even or lesser crimes.

Simply consider modern corporate law for an example of the way in which the elite manipulate government to further their own well-being. For an even starker example, consider the difference between sentencing in "crimes" involving powder and crack cocaine.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 01:08 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
If you are wondering how anarchy would work if modern society broke down along with the rules, you ask me to answer for a straw man. I propose a memetic evolution to society resulting in a new regard for laws and rules, not a tearing down of society.

If you are wondering how anarchy would work amongst a small isolated band of people, you ask me a question I cannot answer. The social structures and norms of societies are heavily dependent upon the resources and needs experienced by the members of the society. In short, how their society would work would be dependent upon the island and the values of those marooned there. What I can say, however, is that the anthropological record would point to a more or less anarchistic manner to social structure, and may even point to a more satisfying lifestyle than that provided by our modern society.
I think im confident in saying that given the circumstances people would choose the democratic method,anarchy favours the strong not the majority.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 03:24 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I think im confident in saying that given the circumstances people would choose the democratic method,anarchy favours the strong not the majority.


Two questions:

What makes you think that an anarchistic society would not have democratic organizations and decision making?

Why should we look to favor the majority? Isn't that simply another word for strength?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:04 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Mr. Fight the Power wrote:
Two questions:

What makes you think that an anarchistic society would not have democratic organizations and decision making?

Why should we look to favor the majority? Isn't that simply another word for strength?
No the majority is a mixed bag and it has value of the weakest, how can you now turn anarchy into a democracy.
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:02 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
No the majority is a mixed bag and it has value of the weakest, how can you now turn anarchy into a democracy.


No, it includes the decision making of people who hold the most popularly held norms, and the most popularly held norms are generally a byproduct of those with power.

Democracy, when a matter of free association and not of vote or else, is perfectly compatible with anarchy.
0 Replies
 
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 07:47 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
Remember guys, Anarchy is the lack of a system of government. Not the lack of decision making ability.

I think that this is another place where the reputation of anarchy is getting in the way. To have no system of government does not mean that there is no system at all. What it means is that people are free to work with each other to create their own ways of making choices. This may include some forms of democracy or even just tossing some dice.
0 Replies
 
nicodemus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:03 am
@Mr Fight the Power,
it doesnt matter how well people can make descisions if they have no power base to implement them over a large scale, and government isn't meant to protect us from crimes in their first incidence, but to keep them from recurring. To actually prevent crime in the first instance is impossible outside of science fiction. Governments exist to...
1. Provide infrastructure, (something i challenge you to provide in an anarchaic society)
2. DETER crime (note, not prevent it, simply attempt to deter it, its not perfect, but its far better than nothing and keeps people in line, or at least discreet)
3. Provide a standard of morality, rather than individualized morality (ie chaos/anarchy)

any government can do this, even dictatorships can garuntee their people quality of life, peace, prosperity, and order (exibit a- Uraguy)
Mr Fight the Power
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:12 am
@nicodemus,
nicodemus wrote:
1. Provide infrastructure, (something i challenge you to provide in an anarchaic society)


First I need to know what essential function government fulfills in providing infrastructure. Asking me to detail the production and provision of all of the different types of infrastructure underneath an anarchist system is a ludicrous request.

Quote:
2. DETER crime (note, not prevent it, simply attempt to deter it, its not perfect, but its far better than nothing and keeps people in line, or at least discreet)


Again, anarchy has its methods of keeping people in line.

And again, the state ultimately does nothing to keep people in line. In fact, it often offers certain individuals and groups the ability to break moral codes without any consequences.


Quote:
3. Provide a standard of morality, rather than individualized morality (ie chaos/anarchy)


Once again, there are natural standards of morality that are not created by government decree. People will not tolerate unjustified killing simply because there is no state to outlaw it.

Quote:
any government can do this, even dictatorships can garuntee their people quality of life, peace, prosperity, and order (exibit a- Uraguy)


I call bullshit. No government can ever guarantee anything to the people. Only the people can produce to sustain their desired lifestyle. The government is just as apt to screw that lifestyle up as protect it, and it will never ADD anything to that lifestyle longterm.
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 05:14:25