There is not enough evidence to dismiss Anarchism
Debate Rounds (3)
Very little evidence tends to be put forward to give weight to this claim, and indeed it is generally held by the claimant that people are just inherently bad people if left to their own devices, and as such require some authority to guide them and ensure the best outcome.
Whilst there are plenty of examples of a lack of authority leading to chaos, violence in the streets, and so forth, it is worth clarifying that none of these situations or rioting or chaotic revolt arose from a politically anarchist system. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that large-scale communities such as the modern autonomous Rojava and the Spanish Civil War era Catalonia, which both followed somewhat anarchist principles, have and had a distinct lack of chaos aside from the civil wars raging around them.
Lastly, the foundation of an Anarchist society: education.
Almost all anarchists understand as a base necessity of an ideal society that people should be able to think, reason, and learn for themselves. This idea of education, not to be confused with supposed "miseducation" through propaganda, is not actually something that we have been able to observe and make conclusions about empirically. Although we have many examples, through the wonder that is the internet, of many people doing amazing things with programming, music, art, mathematics, and more, it is still left unclear whether these people are truly genius or simply have managed to educate themselves.
And here lies my main point: although we think that people in general are just stupid, and this may be the case, it is clear that we are not giving everyone the chance to prove us wrong, whatwith schools that teach Victorian curricula that enforce memory over critical thinking.
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms:lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Anarchism is a lack of government. It is also disorder. I will let you continue from here.
First off, the lack of government is only true with regards to government as a hierarchical structure, with rulers. This does not suggest that anarchists are proponents of destroying all social order. Many anarchists indeed suggest that we organise into communes that democratically debate and decide on topics through consensus, i.e. a sort of self-governance as opposed to a president or other official deciding things for us.
Secondly, whilst the definition of anarchy you have used may refer to a specific case of disorder that can arise from the absence of authority, it is clearly not the proposed situation put forward by the vast majority of flavours of anarchism. Indeed, the very symbols of anarchism that are the A encircled by an O represent "anarchism" and "order" respectively, suggesting at least some form of mutual cooperation and a distinct lack of disorder. As such, we should not take your definition of anarchy to be related to the ideology that is anarchism, or as my argument stands: we do not have enough evidence to suggest that a lack of authority indeed cause disorder.
Amusingly, your very response to my challenge is actually an example of how people are generally quick to dismiss anarchism with illogical points such as: "but anarchism means no order", when there is much literature on the subject discussing myriad processes through which order might be kept without the use of inherently unfair hierarchies. The very fact that few of these detailed theories have had the opportunity to be tested suggests that we do not have enough empirical evidence to reject them.
As for me dismissing Anarchy, one of the founders himself said it would not work and he merely got it from a dream.
government of a country by its own people, especially after having been a colony.
synonyms:independence, self-rule, home rule, self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, nonalignment, freedom
"the self-government of our island nation"
another term for self-control.
Self governments were created by the pilgrims as a form of government. Self governments was a form of democracy, a form of government that is controlled by a ruler.
Do you know the downside to everyone voting for a change or bill? The reason why in our country our votes don't really matter, is because of the electoral college. The electoral college was a compromise between state leaders, national polls, and Congress.
The problems with the parties are:
1) State leaders.
a) They might feel indebted to their states and promote Anti Federalism, which was proven to be a horrible government.
2) National polls.
a) There are way too many uniformed voters.
b) States with more people are more likely to vote for something that they have in common, which again supports Anti Federalism.
a) The president might feel indebted to the Congress, eliminating checks and balances.
The idea you propose is National polls, with the problems I stated.
Self-government in this case should be taken to be people governing themselves, rather than being governed by a ruler, whether the ruler be a king, president, or parliament. Please note that this has nothing to do with the American system and that the electoral college is actually viewed with disdain by many, including several non-Americans like me.
As for states, I don't believe you understand the idea that anarchism seeks to do away with both arbitrary borders and fruitless competition so that, according to the theory, there would be no reason for people to try and screw over other states for their own states gain or some irrational sense of patriotism towards their state. Let us also not forget that anarchist societies are generally suggested to run on consensus, and that anarchism has education of all people at its core, thus eliminating the notion that "there are way too many uninformed voters".
But this is not a discussion on the theory of anarchism, even if you have shown yourself not to have even a base understanding of it. This is a debate centred on the fact that there is not enough empirical evidence to dismiss anarchism without discussion.
As of yet, you have failed to provide any actual historical and backed-up reasons to suggest that anarchism is not worth considering. The only real-world example you have provided is in relation to the modern-day USA. Not only does this mention of a flawed electoral system have nothing in relation with anarchism or its suggested practices, but it actually provides some suggestion that alternatives are worth investigating.
To end, I'd like to thank you for debating me and hope the election tomorrow goes well, even though you have failed to tackle my central point.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.