Print

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

[Kebooo]

Didn't the US have a miniarchist form of government prior to the rise of welfare liberalism in the 1880's? Doesn't revolutionary movements want to form something new, instead of returning to a golden era?

No.  The government levied taxes, tariffs, etc, before then and engaged in more than just the police/military/judiciary.  Minarchism is philosophically opposed to the government having any responsibilities but those.  I'm not sure there's a real-world example of a minarchist government.

[Aqizzar]

Well, technically America did have a minarchist "government" before the 1780s, under the Articles of Confederation.  It had no taxing authority, no authority over interstate trade, no ability to pass laws over the states themselves.  It just represented the colonies collectively in diplomacy (mostly), and directed the continental army.  It also required a 9/13 super-majority vote to pass legislation, including it's own ratification which took four years.  Not surprisingly, it only lasted about a decade, before everybody got together for an ad hoc convention to draft a constitutional government that could actually do shit and stay financially solvent.

[Kebooo]

You are forgetting that the states had their own governments that levied taxes, it was only the federal government that did not.  You can argue the federal government was minarchist, but not what governed the US (a combination of state and federal government), it would be like no federal government existing and calling it anarchy, even if each state had its own government, just doesn't make sense.

[Phmcw]

lol @ the definition of anarchy given by a few : basically "it's the form of government where bikers shoot you in the face for a can of tuna". I mean I know that there is a few country where left-ish idea are given a bad light but this is hilarious.

[fenrif]

lol @ the definition of anarchy given by a few : basically "it's the form of government where bikers shoot you in the face for a can of tuna". I mean I know that there is a few country where left-ish idea are given a bad light but this is hilarious.

Anarchism isn't a left-ish idea. Left-ish implies its part of the political spectrum. Anarchy is the absence of it.

[Phmcw]

Well. By the American book maybe but I can say that in Europe anarchist are far left, as they were in Russia. In the firsts manifesto they wanted to destroy law and order so that an new, better society was possible. That evolved in a sort of free democracy ideology.
Pretty much what happened in Christania.

[SIGVARDR]

I find anarchism funny.If there were no set rules,the government vanished,and people were left to their own devices,the pro-anarchists would be first to go.I've never seen a survivalist-anarchist or a military-anarchist,the only ones i've seen are your stereo-typical hippies and teenagers.

Humans are tribal beings at their base.There will always be a Strong person with the will and charisma to lead the followers around.Warlords,whatever you want to call them,have and always will show up during such a situation.They then become either petty thieves and gangs,or become legends such as Genghis khan,for example.

There will never be any true anarchy.And you would not,if you rationally think about it,want true anarchy.
/end rant.

[fenrif]

Well. By the American book maybe but I can say that in Europe anarchist are far left, as they were in Russia. In the firsts manifesto they wanted to destroy law and order so that an new, better society was possible. That evolved in a sort of free democracy ideology.
Pretty much what happened in Christania.

Anarchy is the absence of any sort of social power structure or control. Of any kind. Any kind of democracy, or group of people with a leader, or anyone part of the political spectrum be they left or right, are not anarchists. Wanting to destroy law and order to create a new society isn't anarchism, because you want to create a new society afterwards.

As sigvardr said, anarchy doesn't really work in reality, because humans are intrinsically social creatures. Anarchy only ever really happens on the way to some form of government.

Also christania isn't an anarchist city. Just because they can smoke pot and make their on rules doesn't mean they are anarchists. Infact making their own rules pretty much defines them as the opposite of anarchists.

[Kebooo]

I don't think it's fair to say we wouldn't ever want true anarchy.  If it meant everyone was peaceful, minded their own business, organized things voluntarily and fairly, why not want that?  Sadly humans aren't ready for that kind of society, we're still just angry chimps with intelligence.

Any kind of democracy, or group of people with a leader, or anyone part of the political spectrum be they left or right, are not anarchists.

This is inaccurate and shows a misunderstanding of political anarchy.  As I said earlier, there are two ideas of anarchy - pure disorder, and political anarchy - the absence of an enforced government.  Anarchy does not require there be no families, no social circles, no clubs, no groups, and the average person that identifies as anarchist is not against any of these things, so it's a bit of a straw man to argue they do.  There's not many people that want pure, disorderly anarchy, and the word does have multiple accepted definitions (I pasted one earlier).

And to be more accurate, there is more than one school of thought on anarchism.  Wiki sums it up as well as any: Anarchism is a political philosophy with many heterogeneous and diverse schools of thought, united by a common opposition to compulsory government.

I want to make the compulsory clear.  That does not mean opposition to any form of being governed or led, by voluntary association.

[fenrif]

And as I said earlier. Anarchy has one definition. Here, I'll post it for you again:

 • noun 1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. 2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.

The phrase "political anarchy" is a redundant statement. The word doesn't have multiple accepted definitions, just the one which is political by nature of what the word means. Sure, you can define it personally as whatever you choose, but the concept of anarchy is just one thing. Obviously it has become synonamous with disorder and other concepts over the years for alot of people (because anarchy is guaranteed to create unprecedented dissaray and chaos), but that doesn't change what the word means.

There aren't two ideas of anarachy, there is one correct definition of the word and another definition that lets people call themselves anarchists without having to think too hard about what that means. Anarchy does not work in the real world, beacuse as someone else stated in this thread, you have to actively work to enforce it. Humans naturally desire some form of social control or power structure. It's how we're wired. The lack of any form of social control or order is the most central concept of anarachy. So no, you cant have clubs, or groups, or anything that involves a power structure.

Anarchy doesn't mean small government. It doesn't mean new government. It doesn't mean everyone do what they want.

Again, as I said before: Saying you are an anarchist, but dont want pure anarchy is akin to saying you're a vegitarian but still enjoy a nice juicy steak. You can't be an anarchist and still want to form a group of people who hold power, or take power yourself, or follow a set of rules or laws. These are all mutually exclusive concepts.

[Kebooo]

No, anarchy does not have "one" definition, not only in the dictionary, but in well accepted political philosophy that has been debated and fleshed out long before either of us were alive.  I'm sorry if you want to pretend the word and its meaning can only be taken in the way you're arguing, but it would be like me disputing the word "gay" and saying it only means a merry mood.

anarchism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism

3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

anarchy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

It is without a doubt a straw man to pretend, when it's explicitly stated by these philosophers and others that argue in favor of anarchism, that their idea of anarchy is precisely how you describe it or something other than what they are arguing.  It is not.  There's really no reason to waste my time explaining this fact.

What you aren't understanding is the nature of power most anarchists are describing.  The one thing anarchists all can agree on is the absence of compulsory government, coercive, enforced government - this kind of power can be authoritative, oppressive, dictatorial, if they do not have an option to leave the contract (I can't simply say I no longer obey the US government and live free, it was never by voluntary association).  That doesn't mean they believe they can't discipline their children, or sign up to bay12games and get banned from the forums, even though a mod has "power" here.  There is "power" of influence, but that does not have to be absent in anarchy.  There can be voluntary association with leadership, but you would have the right to opt out at any time - it is not compulsory or coerced. 

These ideas are all well accepted within political philosophy, it's not I that has come up with these terms and their common use just today.  I would suggest you read more about the anarchist movement and their doctrine if you are going to attribute a definition (when I clearly have demonstrated that there are other listed definitions) that doesn't apply to them.

[fenrif]

I've never once misrepresented your position. Just because someone disagrees with you about something doesn't mean they're building a strawman. You can keep saying it in every post, but unless you use it correctly it's kinda pointless. strawmanstrawmanstrawman.

I'm not pretending anything, I'm simply going by the definition of the word as printed in the Oxford English Dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/anarchy?view=uk

And the Cambridge English Dictionary:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/anarchy

But what do they know, eh? You keep citing philosophers and other anarchists that have apparently re-defined the word to mean "rebellion" or "government-lite." (Well, mentioning them, I've seen no citing as of yet :p) And I'll conceed that there's probobly alot of "anarchists" that have re-appropriated the term to refer to their own personal brand of political ideology. But the definition of the word remains the same. I'm even willing to admit that there is probobly an anarchist political party somewhere, that honestly believes they are true anarchists, and seriously arent just using the term because its cool and egdy to be rebellious. But it just runs so contrary to the word itself that it strikes me as moronic.

Also, just incase you were wondering:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/gay?view=uk

" • adjective (gayer, gayest) 1 (especially of a man) homosexual. 2 relating to homosexuals. 3 dated light-hearted and carefree. 4  dated brightly coloured; showy. "

Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries list the homosexual usuage of gay. So it's not really the same thing. See, because gay has more than one accepted definition, whereas anarchy doesn't.

[piecewise]

you guys are getting pretty heated over a political system that has about as much real world merit as Objectivism eg will never work because it ignores the fundamental nature of humanity.

Communism, anarchy, and all the other "hippy" political ideas are great in theory and may function in small self sufficient communes where everyone has very similar ideals but can not work on larger political scales as ideals begin to differentiate.

[Kebooo]

You can't say "never" work when humanity evolves and changes with time.  I would agree it can't work right now.

fenrif, I am calling your position a straw man because you are making claims against 'anarchists' that the majority of them do not believe in, and arguing against those claims.  That is not a misuse of the word, that is a completely accurate depiction of what a straw man is.  If I said "I would prefer anarchism", and what I meant is the well accepted political definition that's been fleshed out by philosophers, political anarchists, and even the Webster's dictionary, the most commonly used dictionary in the United States, then you shouldn't try to attribute something else to my statement and argue against it.  That is as straw man as they come. 

Are you simply going to claim Webster's is wrong, that the political philosophers are all wrong, that anarchists that self-identify as such are all wrong?  What you seem to be ignoring is the fact I am not calling your definition wrong by any stretch of imagination.  I am saying it is not the only one.  "Gay" used to mean only one thing.  Now it means more than that.  Anarchy and anarchism have two clearly distinct (though similar in nature) connotations.  The connotation I am talking about is the one the vast majority of political anarchists (as in, they believe in having anarchy - the absence of a compulsory government) use.  To take the other meaning (the absence of any group control or order in any form) and argue against it, as if even a sizable portion of them hold that position, IS a straw man.  Do we need to debate the nature of a straw man now? 

Basically your argument is boiling down to "anarchy is X position, if they don't follow it, they're not anarchists" even though the concept of anarchist is the best description for these types of people and for all intents and purposes has a clear meaning in political discussion, like this topic.  Maybe you should suggest to the general political community a new word for them, but as it stands now, anarchist is what they use and there's no point in ignoring their actual opinions in favor of what you and the Oxford dictionary want to call them.

[Grakelin]

Communism, anarchy, and all the other "hippy" political ideas are great in theory and may function in small self sufficient communes where everyone has very similar ideals but can not work on larger political scales as ideals begin to differentiate.

You are right.

It is impossible.

Communism is a foolish ideal that can never work under any circumstance.

Long live Adam Smith!