Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who says anarchists are nonviolent

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.google.com...

I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature. I thought this pretty absurd.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 2:09:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not going to talk for every anarchist but...

I'm against the use of aggression or coercion against a person or the property of another (non aggression axiom). So, in extension, I would be against violence when it is used against another for the purpose of violating property rights.

However, I'm not against all violence. It is entirely dependent on how the violent behavior is used and what it is against.

The anarchists in this article are not representative of all though.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:03:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What ann said.

Also, If it's anything like the violence blamed on anarchists at G20 or WTO protests, the government did it. At any anarchist protest like those, police send someone undercover to throw rocks at the cops or something, who then retaliate by arresting everyone there (Not a conspiracy theory either! They admit to doing this after the fact, and let the people they arrest out of jail--after the thing they're protesting is over).

Also, most of the self-described "anarchists" at these types of things are really just idealistic communists, that think capitalism will abolish itself after government is abolished, rather than having to have a dictatorship of the proletariat to brainwash people first.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:14:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:12:18 PM, innomen wrote:
Fake anarchists, or government consipiracy eh?

Find me an anarcho-capitalist group that did stuff like that.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Tidin
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:17:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it." - Frederic Bastiat

Also see here: http://www.perbylund.com...
"Destruction is therefore not a means for anarchism or anarchists. It cannot be, since destruction and violence require the perpetrator to take the power to destroy and thereby elevate himself above others. Anarchism is non-power, anti-power."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:18:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature.
Yes, because their race is Anarchist? Such idiocy!

I agree with you. It is nonsense, and no, anarchists are not non-violent by nature, just like Buddhist are not non-violent by nature, or any group of people. We are people - saying we are non-violent by nature is a bit illogical.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:19:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:14:30 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:12:18 PM, innomen wrote:
Fake anarchists, or government consipiracy eh?

Find me an anarcho-capitalist group that did stuff like that.
What are you talking about?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:20:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:19:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:14:30 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:12:18 PM, innomen wrote:
Fake anarchists, or government consipiracy eh?

Find me an anarcho-capitalist group that did stuff like that.
What are you talking about?

Anarcho-capitalists do not support aggression against the property of another.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:21:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:18:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature.
Yes, because their race is Anarchist? Such idiocy!

I agree with you. It is nonsense, and no, anarchists are not non-violent by nature, just like Buddhist are not non-violent by nature, or any group of people. We are people - saying we are non-violent by nature is a bit illogical.

lolwut?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:21:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:18:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature.
Yes, because their race is Anarchist? Such idiocy!

I agree with you. It is nonsense, and no, anarchists are not non-violent by nature, just like Buddhist are not non-violent by nature, or any group of people. We are people - saying we are non-violent by nature is a bit illogical.

lolwut?

He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:33:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:21:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:18:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature.
Yes, because their race is Anarchist? Such idiocy!

I agree with you. It is nonsense, and no, anarchists are not non-violent by nature, just like Buddhist are not non-violent by nature, or any group of people. We are people - saying we are non-violent by nature is a bit illogical.

lolwut?

He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point.

But what anarchist says they are against violence because of their nature? That's fallacious and I don't think one person in this thread has stated that.

We (at least the anarcho-capitalists) are against violence since it is contradictory to what anarchism actually stands for -- Tidin's second quote showed that perfectly.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:37:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:36:19 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:33:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:21:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:18:39 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 1:01:41 PM, innomen wrote:
I forget who said this, it may have been FREEDO, not sure, but i do remember one of the anarchists saying that they are non-violent by nature.
Yes, because their race is Anarchist? Such idiocy!

I agree with you. It is nonsense, and no, anarchists are not non-violent by nature, just like Buddhist are not non-violent by nature, or any group of people. We are people - saying we are non-violent by nature is a bit illogical.

lolwut?

He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point.

But what anarchist says they are against violence because of their nature? That's fallacious and I don't think one person in this thread has stated that.

We (at least the anarcho-capitalists) are against violence aimed at the acquisition or destruction of another's property since it is contradictory to what anarchism actually stands for -- Tidin's second quote showed that perfectly.

Fix'd
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:49:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:28:27 PM, Tidin wrote:
Innomen, did my post help to better understand?

I understand the ideals of anarcho-capitalists, but to get from here to there you generally need to break a few eggs along the way. Drop the "anarcho" portion of your label, and you will be better off, albeit slightly.
Tidin
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM, Tidin wrote:
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.

Actually we, human beings, are very violent by nature without the existence of certain other experiences.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 3:56:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:20:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:19:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:14:30 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:12:18 PM, innomen wrote:
Fake anarchists, or government consipiracy eh?

Find me an anarcho-capitalist group that did stuff like that.
What are you talking about?

Anarcho-capitalists do not support aggression against the property of another.
Perhaps not, but I don't know which ones these are.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:01:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:53:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM, Tidin wrote:
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.

Actually we, human beings, are very violent by nature without the existence of certain other experiences.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:03:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:56:59 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:20:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
Anarcho-capitalists do not support aggression against the property of another.
Perhaps not, but I don't know which ones these are.

Pretty much all the anarchists on this site...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:05:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:03:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:56:59 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:20:28 PM, annhasle wrote:
Anarcho-capitalists do not support aggression against the property of another.
Perhaps not, but I don't know which ones these are.

Pretty much all the anarchists on this site...
I meant the bombers.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:53:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM, Tidin wrote:
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.

Actually we, human beings, are very violent by nature without the existence of certain other experiences.

Really? If I'm violent by nature, why haven't I ever initiated violence against anyone? I'm sure the same is true of you, so why haven't you initiated violence if you are violent by nature?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:08:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:06:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:53:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM, Tidin wrote:
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.

Actually we, human beings, are very violent by nature without the existence of certain other experiences.

Really? If I'm violent by nature, why haven't I ever initiated violence against anyone? I'm sure the same is true of you, so why haven't you initiated violence if you are violent by nature?
If an animal is kept in a cage and never acts violently, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a violent nature.
Tidin
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:49:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:28:27 PM, Tidin wrote:
Innomen, did my post help to better understand?

I understand the ideals of anarcho-capitalists, but to get from here to there you generally need to break a few eggs along the way. Drop the "anarcho" portion of your label, and you will be better off, albeit slightly.

Not necessarily:

America was come to be by a intellectual revolution. The people refused to adhere to a government across the oceans.

The south succeeded from the north by using intellectual means.

Note* Both where retaliated against, therefor, the the use of defense is a justifiable form of violence (defending once property).
Tidin
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:10:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 3:53:25 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:50:55 PM, Tidin wrote:
"He's saying people are people and we are violent by nature, and he has a point."

We are only violent, by nature, to the extent of pushing back at being victimized by the state's law(s). Collectivization without violence is impossible, as we know. We are not violent, by nature, without the existence of those experiences.

Actually we, human beings, are very violent by nature without the existence of certain other experiences.

Prove it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:08:31 PM, Tidin wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:49:49 PM, innomen wrote:
At 12/23/2010 3:28:27 PM, Tidin wrote:
Innomen, did my post help to better understand?

I understand the ideals of anarcho-capitalists, but to get from here to there you generally need to break a few eggs along the way. Drop the "anarcho" portion of your label, and you will be better off, albeit slightly.

Not necessarily:

America was come to be by a intellectual revolution. The people refused to adhere to a government across the oceans.

And?????? To get from point A to point B there was a bit of violence involved.

The south succeeded from the north by using intellectual means.

Yeah, no violence there.

Note* Both where retaliated against, therefor, the the use of defense is a justifiable form of violence (defending once property).

Not really. The provocateurs in violence in the American Revolution was the Americans. In the civil war, trust me, they, the south were not following Ghandi.
Tidin
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:13:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If an animal is kept in a cage and never acts violently, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a violent nature.

Really, you are comparing us to tigers and the like?

Having the capability to be violent and being violent by nature is not the same thing.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:14:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:13:08 PM, Tidin wrote:
If an animal is kept in a cage and never acts violently, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a violent nature.

Really, you are comparing us to tigers and the like?
No, I explained - through analogy - why Geo's argument doesn't work. Just because he never used violence doesn't mean that his fellow specie is non-violent.

Having the capability to be violent and being violent by nature is not the same thing.
I am aware of that.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:18:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:05:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
I meant the bombers.

Those aren't anarchists; those are Muslims. And they tend to be totalitarian statists.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 4:20:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 4:13:08 PM, Tidin wrote:
If an animal is kept in a cage and never acts violently, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a violent nature.

Really, you are comparing us to tigers and the like?

Having the capability to be violent and being violent by nature is not the same thing.

Without socialization within a certain culture that pulls us away from our violent impulses, yes we will be violent. Our natural impulse is to react physically which we have repressed due to our life experiences. Being civilized is not the result of nature, but the result of culture.