|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
I don't mean to offend anyone here. But I cannot understand the logic behind anarchism. Anarchism will revert society back to where it stands in places like Somalia-the strong control the weak, warlords hire technicals to slaughter children liviing in an enemy warlord's territory, solely to boost their own image...
Without corporations and government, food, shelter, and clothing will no longer be readily available without a fight, and if obtained, is not processed by any standards of safety and may not be what one thinks it is at all. Oh and music and movies and entertainment? Gone. I often hear anarchists say people will be "equal". But it's not government that institutes classes such as middle or working class. It's the worthiness of people and what the strong, cunning, or determined, regardless of being benevolent or evil, are willing to do. Democracy's criticized methods of not representing the people effectively can be solved by amendments, by policy changes, by more frequent elections, but one thing is for sure, and that is anarchism is not the answer.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
woah shrooms
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 3,864
|
Anarchism is basically an excuse for stupid people to justify their stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Thanks OP, for confusing about 10 different concepts in order to amalgamate them into that pitiful outburst.
Thanks more to hoochan, for giving that dazzling and concise refutation of 3 centuries worth of critical thought on the subject. Just give me half a second, I'll address what I need to: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 05-9-2007 at 06:21 PM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
woah shrooms
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 3,864
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
The problem with this objection is that it supposes what would happen if one day someone just said "We're an anarchistic system now, have fun" and in that sense, the objection -is- valid. The issue though is this: Very very few anarchists or communists that are saying much worth listening to hold that it would be any kind of viable solution to just take the existing representaive democracy-style government and just slap the new one on top. Obviously if you tell a bunch of greedy capitalists "Hey, we're removing all the overisghts on your practices and actions" all burning hell would break loose. One of the key lines in the posted defintion of anarchy is that it is "based on voluntary cooperation." That's the key. All the people involved have to -want- to be in that system, and that just won't happen when you enforce it on an existing system before it is ready. People who use the system as an excuse to justify behavior that works against the ideals of the system isn't "Using the system" and thus propving it wrong...such a person is just -no longer in the system- and would simply be shut out of the entire process. To put it another way: you said "People would begin to murder, rob, and wreak havoc simply because they can get away with it." Who says they can get away with it? I expect a murderer to be treated -much- more harshly in an anarchistic society than in a democratic one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
|
I like the movie SLC punk thats about as close to anarchy as I shall venture
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | ||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Quote:
But about Somalia- I really don't think "political" is an appropriate term to describe the region. Different factions competing for power can hardly be called political. Such events indicate a civil war and bloodshed solely for the purpose of gaining power- warlords are not fighting to create any establishment by which they can provide basic services to the people, but rather, bestially, gunning down anyone and anything such that it improves their image and power. People can join these factions, but they don't operate like political parties and don't debate "issues" in any form whatsoever- if anything, they are most similar to gangs, and only if gangs can be considered political, can Somalia be considered political. Ironically the only instances of sanity and order in Somalia, and non-mass bloodshed, are in regions which have formed independent states with established governments, like Puntland, but those tend to be theocratic. The anarchists I was describing primarily, and who I end up in contact with, are those high shcool rejects you mentioned. Bust most of them subscribe to the marxist form of anarchism. Imo, I don't see any correlation between an "initial" impulse by a strong central government and the ability of "the people" to magically distribute services and production on their own. Most people want to further their own agenda, and would be too busy trying to gain more control of production than anyone else than to take lessons from some pseudo-government trying to provide "guidance". And the only result will be those powerful few creating what will end up being corporations all over again. Government resdistribution of wealth may not be perfect in ensuring that the determined and hard-working will get what they deserve, but it is just that, imperfect. All these alternatives, communism, marxist anarchism....I can't understand the theoretical or practical logic of how such ideologies can help those who deserve more by putting in more effort get what they deserve. Capitalism, by its very definition, relies on competition and human innovation & entrepreunerial ability, and some bureacratic red-tape and screw-ups inevitably caused by democracy are not enough, imo, to justify the abolition of government. If a government instituting too much power povides great safety but loss of freedom and thus dissatisfaction, that is just the opposite extreme. I'm not a totalatarian. But anarchism suggests that no safety be provided, no controls on anyone's life, and all that wonderful freedom we want will be given alongside the freedom of others we would rather not see free (potential rapists and murderers, bloody power-seekers and anything else), and the only conceivable result is chaos.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Quote:
If there are no freedoms being specifically granted or taken away by a government, then the freedom to punch you in the face will be possesed by everyone, as is your freedom to punch someone else in the face without provocation.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | ||||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, doesn't it hold that in a society which still allowed for self-defense and still allowed for others to come to your defense, the incentive to not behave violently would still be there? Doesn't it also hold that people who can't plan ahead far enough to see disincentives and who have an overwhelming desire to hurt others do so now? Freedom is the starting point of all human beings, freedom is just taken away when doing so limits harm, such as when it limits criminals from further criminality. The idea and ideal behind at least an Anarcho-Capitalist system of defense is that no more freedom than neccessary is taken away. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 05-9-2007 at 11:51 PM.. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Quote:
I'd like to respond to the rest (or read it for that matter) but I have AP exams coming up and I've been spending most of the day studying and I really need to rest...in fact, don't be surprised if I don't respond for a week or so...I'm going to be very busy. I didn't really think this would become a big debate, but anyway I will return later.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | ||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Nothing can stop me now..
|
I'm sorry for posting this in CT, because it's not critical thinking at all, but
Your oxymoron for the day is: Anarchist Convention. Hehe, I had to. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Well, it actually brings up something important. Is organization at odds with anarchy? Well, in the sense that "Anarchy" literally means without rules, perhaps it does, but perhaps in this sense "Anarchist" is also a misnomer. The general spirit, at least of the Anarcho-Capitalist, is not one that desires no order, simply one that rejects order created outside of voluntary contract. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain the conceptions of the anarcho-syndicalist though as I think they're fundamentally incoherent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Before I start I just want to clarify something: I DO NOT support domination of the economy by government. I'm not a Libertarian, but I'm certainly no big government radical. I can see why you would think me so because I began by ranting against anarchism, but I am not. I think that handles half the points you make against me...you describe how government mingling in the economy creates flaws, but I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying that's not enough to justify the total abolition of government in daily life, anarchism. I sternly don't believe people have the capability to create a capitalistic utopia without somecentral organization to monitor the economy, but not that such an organization should dictate economic policy.
The problem with this is, where do you draw the cutoff? How many units of suffering have to be present before a government crosses the line? This is ultimately a silly way of thinking. A silly way of thinking it may be, but it is the principle behind every controversy in the American legal system to date- safety vs freedom. There is no right answer and there is no cutoff, because every person is bound to have a differing opinion. Some would be willing to have public executions, others to abolish life sentences. In a democracy, the moderate voices of the majority will be heard and there will be a compromise between freedom vs safety, enough to reasonably satisfy most people. Without a government this equilibrium would not exist. Actually anarchism, or at least Anarcho-Capitalism, suggests that safety should be provided by the market. IE, you can buy a gun, or the services of a security force, as opposed to our present system which finances itself by taxes (and currently if people are unwilling to pay taxes uses a gun to extract the money from them). Ultimately the conception of chaos as a result of Anarchy is quite silly. Everyone has the power to harm. Right now I could go to my attic, get a rifle, walk outside and shoot someone. I don't though, firstly because I have no desire to, and secondly because the result of that would be something I wouldn't enjoy. I'm confused here...something you wouldn't enjoy? Isn't that the consequences, such as imprisonment, or execution, the very punishments handed out by the government, deterring you? For every important man to have a security force (and just as well use it as an army to attack others) seems much more silly to me than government-administered punishments. Now, doesn't it hold that in a society which still allowed for self-defense and still allowed for others to come to your defense, the incentive to not behave violently would still be there? Doesn't it also hold that people who can't plan ahead far enough to see disincentives and who have an overwhelming desire to hurt others do so now? Freedom is the starting point of all human beings, freedom is just taken away when doing so limits harm, such as when it limits criminals from further criminality. The idea and ideal behind at least an Anarcho-Capitalist system of defense is that no more freedom than neccessary is taken away. Obviously not even the strongest of government can abolish the crime of those who can't plan ahead far enough to see disincentives. But private security forces don't seem a better alternative to laws. Corruption and ambition will have a much more powerful hold without laws engineered specifically to stop crime. In Ancient Europe the entire nobility was descendants of those with more cunning than others, those who destroyed others, and if such a lord were to wrong someone defenseless, that person would be no match for his men. Though that example is 1000 years old, anyone crafty enough to use a security force and guns to gain power can wrong others with impunity as easily as a corrupt government can, if not more, because the former would not have to provide justification. This isn't neccessarily the case. Usually what's "given" to peasents, who represent 90% of the population in feudalistic systems, is their lives in exchange for having to give 90% of their crops to lords. Hardly a satisfactory or even customer oriented exchange. The very ideas about property back then represented the inequities of the political system. That's not true. Maybe indirectly, but not directly. Peasants could leave the land and stop farming if they wanted, but then they would be bound to no lord, killed if setting foot in any lord's territory (including the one from who he just fled), and were just fodder for highway bandits. But lords weren't forcing peasants to work in exchange for their lives, it was that they could use the land to serve the church and kingdom with ridiculously high taxes, and then the rest for subsistence. I'm not pro-feudalism or pro-dictatorship, just as I wouldnt support a 90% income tax rate. The point I'm trying to make though, is not that feudalism was wonderful, for God's sakes, no. But Look at it this way- feudalism was a political system that arose from the chaos of anarchy, from the rise of bandits and private armies and power-seekers. Though capitalism was not the economic system, the history is inherent in human nature; without any ruling empire or organization, people WILL come to either lead curelly or follow blindly, and armies, warlords, and then unfair government-controlled hubs will follow. Government is not essentially positive, but the most brutal forms of government, in the form of gangs in Somalia and in the form of feudal lords in Europe, take hold from chaos. There is no "normal" for you to compare against. America? Canada? UK...? It sounds to me like your only objection to treating somalia as a political problem is the complexity and ever-changing nature of the power dynamics. Rule of the gun is just the first step towards rule by fear, it's just that, at least in somalia, the political force never establishes itself to the point for the people to acclimatize themselves to the system. Yeah you have a point there. But refer to my earlier argument...those brutal political systems arise from the fact that no benevolent central authority exists to control the situation. They are seeds of anarchy. Ok. Good luck on your exams. Thanks...like I said I'm very busy, so if anything I said is ambiguous or just sounds really stupid at first glance, I can probably clear it up later...I'll try to respond to your response as soon as I can next time.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
We can bypass a great deal of rehash and discussion if you head over to the thread "[Essay] Should the United Nations have a standing army" and read through Kilroy_X's excellent description of how anarcho-capitalism addresses pretty much all the concerns you just expressed.
Start from around here: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...34#post1491034 Last edited by devonin; 05-10-2007 at 09:22 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Banned
|
Anarchy:
Woo no government! Yay! Now what? Uhhh... Great theory, but theories generally don't work well in reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Er...that's the exact superficial and largely ignorant view of anarchism that was explained away as one of the very first posts of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |||||||||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is, even if we accept that some central organization of the economy or of society was required, all evidence that I know of shows that as the size and influence of government decreases in both of these areas, quality of life increases and suffering decreases. This is directly proportional to the limitation of government. So, first things first, what's your argument in support of neccessity for even the smallest form of central organization? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ok, first I want you to understand how a free market built on voluntary cooperation operates. The voluntary nature of trade ensures that no product is produced which is not valued enough to support it, and that no product is purchased which the consumer doesn't consider good. Now, I want you to understand the fundamental distinction between this dynamic, in which the desirability of something is decided as locally as possible by every individual, and between democracy wherein the values of as much as 49.999_% of the population are in conflict with the product provided. Understand the distinction? Now, the conception of Anarcho-Capitalism is to make everything, including the use of force, the boundaries of communities, the rules of communities; subject to market forces, which hypothetically ensures no service- no outcome, actually - occurs which doesn't meet the criterion for maximum valuation to value satisfaction. This is, at least hypothetically, a vastly superior equilibrium to democracy, no? Quote:
Quote:
When the rich have to pay for protection, that's just one more expenditure for them. I don't think I have to tell you what that means. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Today, guns are an immediate deterent. They can be purchased anywhere for very reasonable prices, they can even be built simply and economically using pretty crude methods. There is no dramatic learning curve in firearm use. Is it possible that a security force could be so superior as to put down not only armed individuals, but also other security forces which would inevitably become involved as demand for their services skyrocketed? Sure; but it is extremely unlikely, and as the state of weapons development as well as of the course of the market in general continues to equalize things in this way, it can only become more unlikely. Quote:
Quote:
Actually, now that I think of it this is just another example of the equalizing effect of technological development, something which is expedited by a free market. In this case it occurs largely from within a power system though instead of externally through free-market cooperation, which makes it all the more fascinating. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|