Print

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

[SIGVARDR]

Let me respond to a question with a question:
What would anarchy let you do that you want to do so bad,But you cannot do it in today's society?
What? do drugs all you want?kill people? There's a long list of things illegal in society,and for good reasons.Anarchy or not,no one will let you just do what you want.
There will always be the undesirable's who would kill you because you looked at them funny,just as there will always be those that seek to protect you from people like that,and to maintain order.

The law protects criminals just as much as normal people as well.Kill someone in today's society,you are likely to go to jail,for life in many cases.In the case of anarchy,you will likely just be shot,as there is no government to run prisons.People will take the law in their own hands when the established law fails.

That is my stance on anarchy,anyway.You may have other views on how anarchy would be,and that's your opinion,as this is mine.

The discussion seems to be getting a bit heated,for silly reasons.Why people need to prove whether they are right or wrong on an anonymous internet forum i do not know.simply post your opinion instead of going into a drawn out debate.

[Kebooo]

I don't like the "there will always be X bad trait" "humans are forever this way" types of arguments.  It wasn't long ago we enslaved men.  I don't intend to kill anyone and yet I exist.  Why must there be murderers, rapists and killers?  Suppose we find ways to detect signs in kids and correct such behaviors before they ever develop.  I just don't like the notion we are forever a scummy, violent, selfish species and will never ever change, when probably none of us describe ourselves as that, only others. 

Anarchy's ultimate goal is to be free of compulsion.  As in, they get to freely use whatever drug they wish, freely say what they want, be free of being taxed, be free of having to have X or Y, be free of having to prove they're a citizen, be free of whatever.  I don't entirely agree with it, but I can understand what they're after, a society free of compulsion and coercion.  And I don't believe it's so far-fetched, I like to believe the average human being can respect another's right to their own choices.  The problem is there are a lot of people that don't respect this right, so, at best, a minarchy would be necessary, and even that, in our current state, would most likely end up worse than what we have now.  It's simply the idealism of it a lot of people identify with and the idea that someday humanity can reach it.

I'm not advocating anarchy here.  I just don't want what the average anarchist believes in to be misrepresented here as so preposterous it couldn't even be possible.  I feel this topic is definitely misrepresenting their views and if I go find a bunch of political anarchists they will virtually all take the position I outlined.

[Grakelin]

I don't like the "there will always be X bad trait" "humans are forever this way" types of arguments.  It wasn't long ago we enslaved men.  I don't intend to kill anyone and yet I exist.  Why must there be murderers, rapists and killers?  Suppose we find ways to detect signs in kids and correct such behaviors before they ever develop.  I just don't like the notion we are forever a scummy, violent, selfish species and will never ever change, when probably none of us describe ourselves as that, only others. 

This is a Hobbes vs. Rosseau debate. One large school of thought feels that we are inherently horrible people and without government our lives would be "nasty, brutish, and short" (to quote Hobbes himself). Another large school of thought feels that we are inherently good people, and societal constructs drag us down.

There's a third guy who advocates a middle ground and says we're morally objective, but I forget his name.

[piecewise]

Humans are good in good situations and bad in bad ones. Anarchy might work as long as there was plenty of resources for everyone and no one had any difficulty getting what they needed to survive, but the moment you start having food shortages or other problems things will get very ugly very fast. Its true in all society but at least in governmentally run societies they have organizations to help with relief efforts and to stop hungry people from stealing food from others.

It's the Caged Rat Rule: The difference between a civilized society and complete chaos is about 3 days without food.

You take away what we need to live and we regress real quickly.

[Kebooo]

But there's also the fact a food shortage in any system is going to get ugly.  Let's say you have a million people, and they all require 5 oz of rice per day to survive, and all we could possibly produce were 3 million oz of rice.  Who decides who dies?  Democracy, socialism, anarchism, when it comes to our survival, all forms of government will collapse so long as our survival is based in selfishness.  It's just in one system you'll have the state killing/jailing the rioters and in another you'd have private citizens doing it.

[Grakelin]

Now we're looking at political economy, one of the basics of political science.

[piecewise]

But there's also the fact a food shortage in any system is going to get ugly.  Let's say you have a million people, and they all require 5 oz of rice per day to survive, and all we could possibly produce were 3 million oz of rice.  Who decides who dies?  Democracy, socialism, anarchism, when it comes to our survival, all forms of government will collapse so long as our survival is based in selfishness.  It's just in one system you'll have the state killing/jailing the rioters and in another you'd have private citizens doing it.

I doubt the private citizens would do it, they'd be too busy killing and looting themselves.

[Servant Corps]

Welp. This should be a lesson to me to not rely on Bay12Games for discussion on political ideologies.

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.

How about this Wiki Page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought

Even your Oxford definition "a society founded on the principles of anarchism". That's what I'm referring to.

To Those Defenders of Anarchy: In Anarchy, will there always be an 'elite' that governs the people volutinarly? Because the idea of empowering an 'elite' is far more concerning to me than the idea of 'coercion'.

[piecewise]

Welp. This should be a lesson to me to not rely on Bay12Games for discussion on political ideologies.

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.

How about this Wiki Page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought

Even your Oxford definition "a society founded on the principles of anarchism". That's what I'm referring to.

To Those Defenders of Anarchy: In Anarchy, will there always be an 'elite' that governs the people volutinarly? Because the idea of empowering an 'elite' is far more concerning to me than the idea of 'coercion'.

I think there will always be an elite to so degree. Humans are social animals and tend to want to look to someone for guidance every now and again. Gotta remember that that all government was born out of the basically anarchistic tribal patterns of early man so its bound to happen again if we regress.

[Phmcw]

When democracy was first advocated in France, a lot of poeple said that it could only lead to turmoil, decadence and corruption, because the plebe could only have low aspiration. Ironically, they were right at first, and now it's the only mode of government we can accept. I'm not an anarchist by far, but I don't like the idea you use to dismiss anarchy in a form of government.
 
First you can only go so far with the definition of a dictionary. Here, for a political concept, you'll want an encyclopedia. The most easily available is wikipedia, so let's consult it. A more serious one may be useful in his circumstance, maybe we'll resort to one if need be. We can clearly see that there is two meaning to this world : lack of centralized power (oh my god, the president has been killed, there is mobster everywhere the country descend into anarchy), and a government form where there is now centralized power. The wikipedia article on anarchism (not anarchy) will give you an historical insight, identify christania as an anarchist community and explain his connection with radical left-wing ideology.

Now we can debate.   

[piecewise]

When democracy was first advocated in France, a lot of people said that it could only lead to turmoil, decadence and corruption,

It hasn't? Which America are you looking at?

[Aqizzar]

When democracy was first advocated in France, a lot of people said that it could only lead to turmoil, decadence and corruption,

It hasn't? Which America are you looking at?

And so it begins.  I think 55 replies in might be a new record, for a thread on politics of any kind turning into America-bashing.

[SIGVARDR]

It might be.every thread seems to atleast sneak a joke in about"those silly americans".

But on topic,i will ask again:
What benefits would you personally get from anarchism you are not getting with your current form of government?

[piecewise]

When democracy was first advocated in France, a lot of people said that it could only lead to turmoil, decadence and corruption,

It hasn't? Which America are you looking at?

And so it begins.  I think 55 replies in might be a new record, for a thread on politics of any kind turning into America-bashing.

I live in America and at least where I live (Las Vegas) Turmoil, Decadence and corruption are pretty much ubiquitous. America isn't bad, its certain assholes within america which are abusing the system that are bad. 

[Kebooo]

This is my rebuttal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIaeAtus5jU

What benefits would you personally get from anarchism you are not getting with your current form of government?

Living in a moral society, for one (their criteria of it).  I imagine many of the more serious anarchists base their position on their principles, not on whether they'll be getting more tangible benefits from it.