Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local voluntary-membership democratic institutions formed into regional councils which represent their member's interests). You really like pushing this "anarchy means every man for himself" line, which is 180% opposite of most anarchist thought.

This conversation is kind of like an atheist saying to a Christian "there is no god" and the Christian responding " who do you think created the universe then, Zeus??". Just not getting it. Theists hold it has to be one god or another, Statists hold it has to be an Elected Strongman or a Dictatorial Strongman.

"Consider a group of anarchists who use slaves and another group of anarchists that do not approve of that and have the resources/manpower to stop it. "

Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.

[kaijyuu]

Your analogies don't make a lick of sense to me, Reelya.


Anyway, I don't really want to participate much in this discussion, but I will ask some questions out of curiosity:

There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local democratic institutions

I've always understood anarchy to be "no rulers," and local democratic institutions would still qualify as having ruler(s) in my mind. At which point am I misunderstanding?

[Devling]

Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.

Really?
Anarchists generally aren't against the use of animals right?
So if some anarchists believe that people aren't people, and rather animals, how is that any different.

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler: Thought experiment (click to show/hide)

Consider a group of anarchists who use slaves and another group of anarchists that do not approve of that and have the resources/manpower to stop it. Do they exert force over the other group (forcing the slavers to stop their practice) or allow the other group to continue to exert force over the slaves (which the slavers claim are "not human" and thus they are not actually exerting force, and are happily continuing their practice)? The slavers are cowards and will not likely put up much of a fight.

There will be someone or someones exerting force over an individual or group against their will regardless of outcome.

You could choose to attack them, obviously exerting undesired force but leading to an overall reduction in the limitation of freedom. Are you still anarchic?

You could do nothing, and allow them to continue to rob the slaves of their freedom. By permitting the slavers to take freedom away, are you still anarchic?

You could open dialogue and over time convince them to abandon the practice of slavery. In the mean time the slavers continue to exert force over the slaves. By permitting the slavers to take freedom away, are you still anarchic?

By existing peacefully within society today can I call myself anarchic?  We simply do what we can, and absolutes will always at some point be incompatible with a situation faced in reality.

I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

[Devling]

I think that assuming that anarchy is better then more organized government is also over looking the fact that people don't always act in good faith.
If the position of power is not filled, someone will fill it.

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

Fair enough.

The biggest problem I see in this kind of government is war.
First, you're going to have to have a volunteer army, unless you wanted  to draft people which seems to fly in the face of all the ideals. Second, how are you going to organize the command structure?
You can argue a civilian government run with no leaders, but I fail to see how a military with no leaders would work effectively. I suppose that they would be an effective independent guerrilla force...

[SalmonGod]

Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.

Really?
Anarchists generally aren't against the use of animals right?
So if some anarchists believe that people aren't people, and rather animals, how is that any different.

Actually, most leftist anarchists (which covers most besides anarcho-capitalists and strict individualists) are really big on animal rights, often to a more radical extent than I care for. 

The situation is conceivable, but impossible to give a straight answer with just that information.  I think the main crux would be how badly the slaves are treated.

Anyway, I don't really want to participate much in this discussion, but I will ask some questions out of curiosity:

There's an assumption that "the position of power is not filled" because we have a decentralized communal system? I'd argue that the direct democracy advocated by anarchists replaces the power structure with another structure. (local democratic institutions

I've always understood anarchy to be "no rulers," and local democratic institutions would still qualify as having ruler(s) in my mind. At which point am I misunderstanding?

Probably different definitions of what constitutes a ruler.  Anarcho-syndicalist structures are mostly made up of groups that conduct themselves entirely through consensus decision-making processes (otherwise known as direct democracy), and then elect representatives that rotate very frequently and can be dropped at a moments notice to communicate and negotiate on behalf of those decisions with other groups.  From our perspective, there is no ruler in this situation.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Deviling (and friends):

Anarchism (General)

Schools of thought in Anarchism (You'll find the variants listed here.)

Issues in Anarchism ("What do anarchists think about X?")

Anarchist Economics (Answers to how we can do business without a state.)

History of Anarchism

Anarchist Theory (The ideas in and of anarchism.)

[alexandertnt]

Hmm weird. A group of anarcho-fascists? There is no such thing. That's like asking for Atheist Christians or something, so the entire conversation is void.

No its not, that doesnt make any sense. And yes there is such thing.

Those slavers are not taking away any persons rights or freedoms, why are they not anarchists? After all, there is no direct contradiction with anarchy, is there?

But thats besides the point, the thought experement works regardless of whether the slavers are anarchists or not, because that is not the point of the thought experement. The experement asks what you would do if you were in the anarchist group opposed to the slavery?

By existing peacefully within society today can I call myself anarchic?  We simply do what we can, and absolutes will always at some point be incompatible with a situation faced in reality.

I suppose part of my argument is against the concept of a political ideal itself. While I believe generally in a social-democracy, I don't like to call myself a "social democrat" directly (to avoid someone thinking I believe in concepts that I may or may not actually believe in) and instead advocate elements of politics I think are best (most, but not all, of which are generally from the concept of a social democracy).

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

Fair enough, I do understand what you mean. Personally though I think allowing people to elect someone and grant them power allows them to generally stop the abuse of powers others may try to exert over me. I prefer to reject rulership based on a per-case bases rather than overall, hopefully leading to rulers that have a positive effect.

[SalmonGod]

Conversely, I would rather not any ruler be given power over me, precisely because they are a person, and will not always act in good faith.

Fair enough, I do understand what you mean. Personally though I think allowing people to elect someone and grant them power allows them to generally stop the abuse of powers others may try to exert over me. I prefer to reject rulership based on a per-case bases rather than overall, hopefully leading to rulers that have a positive effect.

Yeah... it just gets... hairy... hairy as all hell.  To the point that I believe the process very rarely works out to a net positive.

My first problem:  Anybody who offers themselves up for election is automatically disqualified in my book.  I don't think the problem is that power corrupts.  I think it's that only the corrupt desire power in the first place.  Desiring power implies an agenda.  An agenda implies their main interest will not be serving the will of the people who elected them.

My second problem:  Power consolidates -- otherwise known as corruption.  This once again isn't the fact that power corrupts.  It's that once a corrupt person has obtained power, they gain access to options for increasing that power.  Gradually, public will becomes distorted and lost, and all that's left is the rulership.  This is what I've been meaning to point out in response to your points about the sustainability of anarchy, but couldn't find an elegant way to wedge it in.  A statist democracy may be able to sustain its form, but I believe it's doomed to lose its purpose and benefits all the same.

[lordcooper]

Too many isms.

[alexandertnt]

I wouldnt think anyone who offers themselves up for elections is necessarily after the power for negative reasons. Consider someone wanting to change laws for <insert something universally positive here>, I would think anyone who wants to do positive would actively be driven to put themselves up for election.

That doesnt mean everyone offering themselves for election is good (oh my no), just that in a proper election people are at least supposed to weed out the bad people. A form of allowing society some choice in who gets power.

It is also why I believe that it is important that a government structure does not consolidate power too heavily in one position. A President's (or Prime Minister for me) power should be dependent on "the people" and the rest of the government structure should not be allowed to function completely independently. The idea being that if you get elected, your powers are limited and not absolute.

I understand what you mean in your second point and mostly agree. Governence changes over time for better or for worse this is a given. And any good government is bound to fall eventually, I just think that anarchy would be one of the more unstable forms of politics.

[Frumple]

Interesting thing is that SG didn't necessarily say that the agenda the people in question have is bad... just that they have one, and because of that aren't going to be primarily representing the will of the people. Even if the axe they seek to grind is overall beneficial, they've still got that as a primary goal instead of what they're ostensibly supposed to be doing. That's not really democracy, perhaps. Representative democracy at best, but that's a notably different beast compared to direct.

It's actually a bit of a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before, that corruption doesn't necessarily entail "negative corruption", if you will. Just that the power in question is being used for reasons beyond serving the people (organizing and enacting their will).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.

[SalmonGod]

Interesting thing is that SG didn't necessarily say that the agenda the people in question have is bad... just that they have one, and because of that aren't going to be primarily representing the will of the people. Even if the axe they seek to grind is overall beneficial, they've still got that as a primary goal instead of what they're ostensibly supposed to be doing. That's not really democracy, perhaps. Representative democracy at best, but that's a notably different beast compared to direct.

It's actually a bit of a viewpoint I hadn't thought of before, that corruption doesn't necessarily entail "negative corruption", if you will. Just that the power in question is being used for reasons beyond serving the people (organizing and enacting their will).

You got it.  I also look at it this way.  The mentality behind even a benevolent agenda can be summarized as "I am so sure that I know what is best for people, that I want access to the privilege of this establishment to use force to make it happen."

Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.

I have very mixed feelings about this.  I share a strong natural desire to see virtuous leadership... but then those ideal leadership virtues are so difficult to identify.  It's only natural for a person to see wisdom as what they agree with, so selecting for virtue or agenda ends up the same either way.  Plus, history shows that meritocracy seems to naturally devolve into oligarchy.  And finally even in the best case scenario, I'm uncomfortable with an official forcing an unpopular decision on the public solely on the basis that they're wiser and know what's best.

[alexandertnt]

I have never really thought that anyone with power is trying to do bad per se, and I also see it as someone doing what they think is best. Thats why we have protests, when people disagree with the people in power that what they are doing is good.

Personally, I disagree with the notion that elected officials have to do what the will of their electors desires and nothing more. We (ideally) select elected officials based off the capacity that they prove exemplary amongst the populace in wise leadership and intelligent decision making, so that should be what they should be judged off of.

This is how our democracies are supposed to work, since they are representative democracies. We elect someone who we believe can make wise decisions. If they start to screw up and everyone disagrees, then protests start, everyone hates them, and they lose the next election.

Their power is still limited though, we don't elect kings. They generally have to go through popular referendums to change their level of power.