Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Anarchy is Nothing Less Than Social Order

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 12:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;
Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;
Whoever says individual liberty says the sovereignty of each;
Whoever says the sovereignty of each says equality;
Whoever says equality says solidarity or fraternity;
Whoever says fraternity says social order.
Therefore whoever says Anarchy says social order.

Whoever says government says denial of the people;
Whoever says denial of the people says affirmation of political authority;
Whoever says affirmation of political authority says individual subordination;
Whoever says individual subordination says class supremacy;
Whoever says class supremacy says inequality;
Whoever says inequality says antagonism;
Whoever says antagonism says civil war.
Therefore whoever says government says civil war.

Anselme Bellegarrigue
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;

Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;

Without restraints on personal liberty the natural human reaction is to deny the liberty of others.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;

Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

No, that's a society. Government is detrimental to the society as a whole.

Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;

Without restraints on personal liberty the natural human reaction is to deny the liberty of others.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;

Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

No, that's a society. Government is detrimental to the society as a whole.

Government sits at the top of a functioning society. You can't have one without the other. Even in an anarchist society there will be Government, just one not formally constructed.


Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;

Without restraints on personal liberty the natural human reaction is to deny the liberty of others.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;

Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

No, that's a society. Government is detrimental to the society as a whole.

Government sits at the top of a functioning society.

You'd have to prove that a government is responsible for its functionality. Good luck with that.

You can't have one without the other. Even in an anarchist society there will be Government, just one not formally constructed.

That's horrendously wrong. Independent, private agencies do not constitute a government. You can have laws and order without government.


Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;

Without restraints on personal liberty the natural human reaction is to deny the liberty of others.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

Unsubstantiated assertion. And a cliche.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:19:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

A government is founded. At the instant of its foundation it has its creatures, and consequently its partisans; and from the moment that it has partisans, it has also adversaries.

Now the germ of civil war is fecundated by this single fact, for you cannot make a government, invested with unlimited power, treat its adversaries as it treats its partisans. You cannot make it distribute the favors at its disposal equally between its friends and its enemies. You cannot prevent it from coddling the one class or from persecuting the other. Yon cannot, then, prevent this inequality from generating sooner or later a conflict between the party of the privileged and the party of the oppressed. In other words, given a government, you cannot avoid the ways that establish privilege, provoke division, create antagonism, and determine civil war.

Therefore government is civil war.

Now, if it suffices, in order to bring about a conflict between citizens, that they be, on the one hand, partisans, and, on the other, adversaries, of the government; if it is demonstrated that, outside the love or hatred which we bear toward the government, civil war has no reason to exist,—that is as much as to say that, in order to establish peace, it suffices for citizens to cease, on the one hand, to be partisans, and, On the other, to be adversaries, of the government.

But to cease attacking or defending the government in order to make civil war impossible is nothing less than to leave it altogether out of the account, to throw it into the scrap-heap, to suppress it in order to found social order.

Now, while the suppression of government is, from one point of view, the establishment of order, it is, from another point of view, the foundation of Anarchy; therefore order and Anarchy are parallel.

Therefore Anarchy is order.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:21:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 12:47:11 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Someone else's thoughts.

Government can exist in anarchy.

Also, I'm very surprised by this bit: Whoever says class supremacy says inequality... You suck Rothbard's d!ck but then frequently cite people like Proudhon ("Property is theft!") at the same time. Which is it? Are you a capitalist or not? Capitalism = class supremacy.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Whoever says Anarchy says denial of government;
Whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people;

Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

No, that's a society. Government is detrimental to the society as a whole.

Government sits at the top of a functioning society.

You'd have to prove that a government is responsible for its functionality. Good luck with that.

You'd have to find evidence of a functioning society without Government.


You can't have one without the other. Even in an anarchist society there will be Government, just one not formally constructed.

That's horrendously wrong. Independent, private agencies do not constitute a government. You can have laws and order without government.

We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

Oh we don't have a police force, we have private mercenaries. Oh we don't a state run court system we have a public/informal/private sector one. Oh we don't have a Government making laws, we have a community making laws.

The big mistake it makes in my opinion is that it pretends that humans are not competing ba$tards held in check by force.

Whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty;

Without restraints on personal liberty the natural human reaction is to deny the liberty of others.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

Unsubstantiated assertion. And a cliche.

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

Define success.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:43:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd have to find evidence of a functioning society without Government.

Here's an entire list for your convenience. http://en.wikipedia.org...

We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

Anarchists say you should opt into your government (so to speak). Where's the confusion?

The big mistake it makes in my opinion is that it pretends that humans are not competing ba$tards held in check by force.

Lol. And what keeps the government in check? Please don't embarrass yourself and say the people.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

How does anarchy go against the grain of human nature?

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

... What's your point?
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:46:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:19:03 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Government is the means by which people organise themselves for a common agenda and thereby affirm themselves.

A government is founded. At the instant of its foundation it has its creatures, and consequently its partisans; and from the moment that it has partisans, it has also adversaries.


Something has been bugging me for a while, I know this site is dominated by anarchists, I know that the anarchists here are very clever, I know I am not the most intelligent person here... but really anarchists here are consistently refusing to critically analyse their ideology.

(Inb4 someone says I am posting like Godsands).

Really think, I mean really think about what it means to completely remove Government. To break it down to the simplest terms Government is about coercion. It is about other things as well, but that is one of it's major functions and the main anarchist objection to it right?

If I am wrong, don't address the rest of the post just tell why I am a prat. If I am right carry on with the rest of my rant.

A plane crashes on a desert island. There are three groups of survivors,

The first group reckons that they could make a ship only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building the ship.

The second group reckons that they could make a decent shelter only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building shelters.

The third group reckons that as they only have limited food, they should start murdering the others for their meat, they proceed to start looking for weapons and/or eyeing up the dead, dying and disabled.

Can all groups co-ordinate their efforts without an internal leader (someone who knows how to make a ship a shelter or a battleplan for instance).

Can any of the groups reach their goal unless they coerce the others?

Now if your anarchism is based on a contempt for such leadership and coercion how to do expect the groups to resolve their differences or indeed do anything? If your anarchism accepts the need for leadership and coercion then what does your anarchism really mean?

(Sorry I ran out of time to address the rest of the post, I'll have to come back. Not that anyone cares cos I am just a retarded statist).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:48:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:38:11 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

Define success.

Good point. A society in which the majority of the citizens are not unhappy, not routinely subject to violence, enjoy a good standard of living, stability, running water. Potentially it's pretty subjective I guess.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 1:50:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
P1ss... I have good points to address/make but I won't be online for another 12 hours, by which time this thread will on the 57th page. It's always the way.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 7:00:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think these are very good questions C_N, so I'll try to analyze what you have suggested before parodying it in my other thread. I'm deleting the parts of your post that I'm not responding to.

At 3/9/2011 1:46:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Really think, I mean really think about what it means to completely remove Government. To break it down to the simplest terms Government is about coercion. It is about other things as well, but that is one of it's major functions and the main anarchist objection to it right?


There are many objections to government, but they mostly stem from the fact that the government uses violence as its primary means of accomplishing its goals. For the sake of discussion I will say that the unrestricted use of violence is the only problem because that's all we're strictly talking about.

If I am wrong, don't address the rest of the post just tell why I am a prat. If I am right carry on with the rest of my rant.

A plane crashes on a desert island. There are three groups of survivors,

The first group reckons that they could make a ship only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building the ship.

The second group reckons that they could make a decent shelter only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building shelters.

The third group reckons that as they only have limited food, they should start murdering the others for their meat, they proceed to start looking for weapons and/or eyeing up the dead, dying and disabled.

Can all groups co-ordinate their efforts without an internal leader (someone who knows how to make a ship a shelter or a battleplan for instance).


In theory, they could do it with or without a leader. Construction and fighting are easier with a system of organization. As long as that leader did not use force to make people obey, they would still be in a state of anarchy.

Can any of the groups reach their goal unless they coerce the others?


Obviously not because the goal of group three is to coerce others. The other two groups also cannot both accomplish their goal with or without force because their resources are too limited.

Now if your anarchism is based on a contempt for such leadership and coercion how to do expect the groups to resolve their differences or indeed do anything? If your anarchism accepts the need for leadership and coercion then what does your anarchism really mean?


Leadership isn't a problem if there is no coercion. One person can direct others to improve organization as long as they are acting willingly. The idea that managers are superior and works are subordinate is a social construction based on the fact that the managers do often have the threat of force in state capitalism. That's a product of the barbaric history of Western culture and not a fault in capitalism.

More importantly, these groups cannot cooperate because group three is comprised of a bunch of savages. The other two groups should fight them off and then have a discussion about what to do. A "government" in this situation would be someone deciding that one group's idea is right and carrying that out, which in this situation is perfectly equivalent to civil war. In more complex societies the internal violence instituted by the government is less obvious but it is essentially the same.

(Sorry I ran out of time to address the rest of the post, I'll have to come back. Not that anyone cares cos I am just a retarded statist).

If you aren't working to overthrow the government right now you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Only a complete fool wouldn't immediately conclude that the status quo should be completely changed on the basis of limited information from an internet forum! You should just go back to stupid school.

Seriously though, your posts are excellent food for thought. I enjoy answering real thought experiments as much a I enjoy making ridiculous ones of my own.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We live in anarchy. Government is a lie perpetuated by the man to keep you down.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 7:43:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd have to prove that a government is responsible for its functionality. Good luck with that.

You'd have to find evidence of a functioning society without Government.

Not at all. The BoP is on you if you assert that the reason a society exists is because of the government. Can you justify that?

That's horrendously wrong. Independent, private agencies do not constitute a government. You can have laws and order without government.

We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

You know the definition that almost all anarchists use within debate. So you know which one I am referring to -- to say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

And yes, anarchists are not opposed to law or order. We're opposed to the control government has with its violent implementation. I don't know about the rest, but the absence of accountability also angers me.

Oh we don't have a police force, we have private mercenaries. Oh we don't a state run court system we have a public/informal/private sector one. Oh we don't have a Government making laws, we have a community making laws.

Like I said, we are not opposed to law or order. We are opposed to government! Why is this hard to grasp? Anarchy is not the abolition of government and everything associated with government.

The big mistake it makes in my opinion is that it pretends that humans are not competing ba$tards held in check by force.

No, the biggest mistake is assuming that the force is necessary.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

Unsubstantiated assertion. And a cliche.

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

And your point is....?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:27:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 1:43:14 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd have to find evidence of a functioning society without Government.

Here's an entire list for your convenience. http://en.wikipedia.org...

At a glance none of them were anarchist.


We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

Anarchists say you should opt into your government (so to speak). Where's the confusion?

All the resulting problems that this causes and the fact that it is actually anarchism?


The big mistake it makes in my opinion is that it pretends that humans are not competing ba$tards held in check by force.

Lol. And what keeps the government in check? Please don't embarrass yourself and say the people.

To an extent, or the military, the upper classes, the Government itself.


True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

How does anarchy go against the grain of human nature?

Unless the individual is constrain by external forces he will invariabily tyrannise others. That is human nature.


Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

... What's your point?

It is a reciprocral demand for evidence, why should the burden of proof fall only on me?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:35:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 7:00:08 PM, Grape wrote:
I think these are very good questions C_N, so I'll try to analyze what you have suggested before parodying it in my other thread. I'm deleting the parts of your post that I'm not responding to.

At 3/9/2011 1:46:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Really think, I mean really think about what it means to completely remove Government. To break it down to the simplest terms Government is about coercion. It is about other things as well, but that is one of it's major functions and the main anarchist objection to it right?


There are many objections to government, but they mostly stem from the fact that the government uses violence as its primary means of accomplishing its goals. For the sake of discussion I will say that the unrestricted use of violence is the only problem because that's all we're strictly talking about.

Government does not universally rely on violence as it's primary tool, indeed in most stable advanced societies there have been efforts to build a gap between the giving of commands and recourse to violence.


If I am wrong, don't address the rest of the post just tell why I am a prat. If I am right carry on with the rest of my rant.

A plane crashes on a desert island. There are three groups of survivors,

The first group reckons that they could make a ship only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building the ship.

The second group reckons that they could make a decent shelter only if they use all of the debris from the plane, they proceed to start building shelters.

The third group reckons that as they only have limited food, they should start murdering the others for their meat, they proceed to start looking for weapons and/or eyeing up the dead, dying and disabled.

Can all groups co-ordinate their efforts without an internal leader (someone who knows how to make a ship a shelter or a battleplan for instance).


In theory, they could do it with or without a leader. Construction and fighting are easier with a system of organization. As long as that leader did not use force to make people obey, they would still be in a state of anarchy.

In such a dire situation such a leader would resort to force, does anarchy any sort of longevity?


Can any of the groups reach their goal unless they coerce the others?


Obviously not because the goal of group three is to coerce others. The other two groups also cannot both accomplish their goal with or without force because their resources are too limited.

Now if your anarchism is based on a contempt for such leadership and coercion how to do expect the groups to resolve their differences or indeed do anything? If your anarchism accepts the need for leadership and coercion then what does your anarchism really mean?


Leadership isn't a problem if there is no coercion. One person can direct others to improve organization as long as they are acting willingly. The idea that managers are superior and works are subordinate is a social construction based on the fact that the managers do often have the threat of force in state capitalism. That's a product of the barbaric history of Western culture and not a fault in capitalism.

How would major tasks be accomplished without some threat of force? Do you think people like stacking shelves or mending roads?


More importantly, these groups cannot cooperate because group three is comprised of a bunch of savages. The other two groups should fight them off and then have a discussion about what to do. A "government" in this situation would be someone deciding that one group's idea is right and carrying that out, which in this situation is perfectly equivalent to civil war. In more complex societies the internal violence instituted by the government is less obvious but it is essentially the same.

But then that surely is the only way of actually getting anything done.


(Sorry I ran out of time to address the rest of the post, I'll have to come back. Not that anyone cares cos I am just a retarded statist).

If you aren't working to overthrow the government right now you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Only a complete fool wouldn't immediately conclude that the status quo should be completely changed on the basis of limited information from an internet forum! You should just go back to stupid school.


Hehe.

Seriously though, your posts are excellent food for thought. I enjoy answering real thought experiments as much a I enjoy making ridiculous ones of my own.

Cheers.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 1:40:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 7:43:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:04:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 12:54:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd have to prove that a government is responsible for its functionality. Good luck with that.

You'd have to find evidence of a functioning society without Government.

Not at all. The BoP is on you if you assert that the reason a society exists is because of the government. Can you justify that?

That's horrendously wrong. Independent, private agencies do not constitute a government. You can have laws and order without government.

We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

You know the definition that almost all anarchists use within debate. So you know which one I am referring to -- to say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

I am not challenging definitions am I?


And yes, anarchists are not opposed to law or order. We're opposed to the control government has with its violent implementation. I don't know about the rest, but the absence of accountability also angers me.

Oh we don't have a police force, we have private mercenaries. Oh we don't a state run court system we have a public/informal/private sector one. Oh we don't have a Government making laws, we have a community making laws.

Like I said, we are not opposed to law or order. We are opposed to government! Why is this hard to grasp? Anarchy is not the abolition of government and everything associated with government.

It is hard to grasp because it appears to be an entirely arbitary distinction. We are opposed to A telling us what to do, but if we got rid of it we could replace it with B, C and D telling us what to do.

I obviously must have the wrong end of the stick can't be the case that anarchists simply want to remove the word Government, yet retain all it's features?


The big mistake it makes in my opinion is that it pretends that humans are not competing ba$tards held in check by force.

No, the biggest mistake is assuming that the force is necessary.


It is! History shows this, personal experience shows this.

Even if it was natural, that doesn't justify it.

True, but all governmental/social systems that go utterly against the grain of human nature will fail.

Unsubstantiated assertion. And a cliche.

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

And your point is....?

The burden of proof falls on both of us.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 11:30:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 1:40:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 7:43:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

You know the definition that almost all anarchists use within debate. So you know which one I am referring to -- to say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

I am not challenging definitions am I?

You are alluding to the idea that anarchists support government as long as it isn't called government. That is simply asinine.

Like I said, we are not opposed to law or order. We are opposed to government! Why is this hard to grasp? Anarchy is not the abolition of government and everything associated with government.

It is hard to grasp because it appears to be an entirely arbitary distinction. We are opposed to A telling us what to do, but if we got rid of it we could replace it with B, C and D telling us what to do.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. Think about it C_N....

Under a state, the governing body creates policy A which they demand to be implemented across the country. If Town X does not follow policy A, they are either coerced or forced into compliance. If the government takes it too far, and angers the public... They create policy B which allows for their most recent actions.

And their power grows, and grows and grows. Where is the accountability? How can anything be kept under control when the governing body has COMPLETE control and can force any "injustice", as some would call it, on its people?

Now, in an anarchist society... There would be agencies. Within the society, there would be laws to keep order and advancement. The agencies cannot create a new policy (Policy A) themselves without the people accepting it -- if an agency tried to create a new law, they would have to get every agency to agree and to implement it. Otherwise, the people would leave and be represented by a different agency which isn't abusing their power. So... their power is limited. They can be held accountable for their actions. Etc.,etc.,etc.

That is very different.

I obviously must have the wrong end of the stick can't be the case that anarchists simply want to remove the word Government, yet retain all it's features?

Not all of the features which constitute a government but they would advocate for social order which would mean retaining some features.

It is! History shows this, personal experience shows this.

Yes, history has shown many of the biggest mistakes. If someone said, "religion is necessary for society" and you said, "No." and their response was, "It is! History shows this, personal experience shows this."

Would you have been convinced? Nope.

And your point is....?

The burden of proof falls on both of us.

I'm merely showing you how a society would function successfully without a government -- that is my burden. Now you must prove a government is necessary.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 11:50:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 1:27:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At a glance none of them were anarchist.

How so?

All the resulting problems that this causes and the fact that it is actually anarchism?

Huh? What problems? I posed this to innomen in another thread when he said competing "governments" could not be harmonious. Well, Mexico has its government. The U.S. has its government. Canada has its government. These are 3 bordering territories with different governments. Clearly this is not a foreign concept. It's possible to 'opt in' to a "government" (system of arbitration and/or protection services) in a particular territory. You keep saying "oh but all the problems, all the problems..." What problems?

To an extent, or the military, the upper classes, the Government itself.

Omg... omg did you just say that the MILITARY, the UPPER CLASS and the GOVERNMENT ITSELF is what keeps the government in check?!?!?! Omg lmfao! Are you serious, CN?!?! Wooow. Wow I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, I had no idea you were such an authoritative tyrant.

That aside, let's look at Libya, shall we. Their fvcked up leader keeps sending the military to kill all the protesting citizens. The military therefore doesn't keep "the government" in check. The government doesn't keep the government in check. The upper class and government are pretty much synonymous. Money and Power are interchangeable. This has not been successful. If the citizens wanted change, the government would just have the military kill everybody and send in the riot police and shiz. The people have no power. You're pretty much enslaved and like it that way by your logic.

Unless the individual is constrain by external forces he will invariabily tyrannise others. That is human nature.

... What does that have to do with anarchy? Not only does anarchy have ways to "protect" against this, but the same exact logic applies to government. You think there should essentially be some kind of fascist SINGLE authority tyrannical force. The scariest kind. Interesting.

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

... What's your point?

It is a reciprocral demand for evidence, why should the burden of proof fall only on me?

Huh? You asked to see anarchist states. I gave you an entire list. You said they weren't anarchy. Well, anarchy has a specific definition whether you choose to delude yourself into thinking it doesn't exist or not. You'll explain to me why those examples weren't really anarchy and then I'll explain to you why you're wrong. And then you'll just keep saying "Well... no. I'm right. There are problems." And I will say, "Name a problem." You will say, "Here's a problem." I'll provide you the anarchist solution. You'll say, "That won't work." I'll say, "Why not?" You'll say, "It's never worked before... but but human nature..." I'll say, "It's not against human nature, and here are some examples."

You'll deny the examples. Rinse and repeat. This is a pointless, circular conversation.

You'll say anarchy doesn't last. I'll say only because it was taken over by force. No governments "last." They evolve and change. They get overthrown or reformed. Right now it's obvious "the people" have zero control or say in our government. People are just comfortable with it I guess. Not all of us, but meh. I think in this day and age our chance at any revolution is going to come via Wikileaks or some group like Anonoymous and hackers that completely use technology against the Man. That's the only way I can conceive of any real and dramatic change.
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 12:33:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 11:30:08 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 1:40:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 7:43:39 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:26:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:10:16 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 1:07:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
We can include a number of different properties and values under the word Government. What I am increasingly finding is that Anarchists are individually accepting every single one of these properties... just not calling it Government. At it's best it seems to be ultimately about streamlining and decentralising Government.

You know the definition that almost all anarchists use within debate. So you know which one I am referring to -- to say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

I am not challenging definitions am I?

You are alluding to the idea that anarchists support government as long as it isn't called government. That is simply asinine.

I am only reacting to what is being said to me.


Like I said, we are not opposed to law or order. We are opposed to government! Why is this hard to grasp? Anarchy is not the abolition of government and everything associated with government.

It is hard to grasp because it appears to be an entirely arbitary distinction. We are opposed to A telling us what to do, but if we got rid of it we could replace it with B, C and D telling us what to do.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. Think about it C_N....

Under a state, the governing body creates policy A which they demand to be implemented across the country. If Town X does not follow policy A, they are either coerced or forced into compliance. If the government takes it too far, and angers the public... They create policy B which allows for their most recent actions.

And their power grows, and grows and grows. Where is the accountability? How can anything be kept under control when the governing body has COMPLETE control and can force any "injustice", as some would call it, on its people?

What about federal systems, local government, constitutional limits, elections. Can't these be employed as means against this?

You also seem to be presenting absolute distinctions.


Now, in an anarchist society... There would be agencies. Within the society, there would be laws to keep order and advancement. The agencies cannot create a new policy (Policy A) themselves without the people accepting it -- if an agency tried to create a new law, they would have to get every agency to agree and to implement it. Otherwise, the people would leave and be represented by a different agency which isn't abusing their power. So... their power is limited. They can be held accountable for their actions. Etc.,etc.,etc.

That is very different.

By agency do you mean some akin to a Government department, or a geographic sub-division. If the former, then your systems sounds more direct democracy bound by a tight constitution?


I obviously must have the wrong end of the stick can't be the case that anarchists simply want to remove the word Government, yet retain all it's features?

Not all of the features which constitute a government but they would advocate for social order which would mean retaining some features.

It is! History shows this, personal experience shows this.

Yes, history has shown many of the biggest mistakes. If someone said, "religion is necessary for society" and you said, "No." and their response was, "It is! History shows this, personal experience shows this."

Would you have been convinced? Nope.

You are not really expanding very much on your points either!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 12:51:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 11:50:07 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 1:27:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At a glance none of them were anarchist.

How so?

Well take the Icelandic Commonwealth, it had an extensive state court system headed by a supreme court. It made baptism compulsory. It banned paganism. Written legal code. Feudal military. Social classes.

Is that anarchist?


All the resulting problems that this causes and the fact that it is actually anarchism?

Huh? What problems? I posed this to innomen in another thread when he said competing "governments" could not be harmonious. Well, Mexico has its government. The U.S. has its government. Canada has its government. These are 3 bordering territories with different governments. Clearly this is not a foreign concept. It's possible to 'opt in' to a "government" (system of arbitration and/or protection services) in a particular territory. You keep saying "oh but all the problems, all the problems..." What problems?

But those Governments also have clear geograhic barriers. In any case the nomadic idea is the least problematic. My main problem is an ideology that rallies against central Government tyranny unless you have opted in, and holds no problem with corporate tyranny.


To an extent, or the military, the upper classes, the Government itself.

Omg... omg did you just say that the MILITARY, the UPPER CLASS and the GOVERNMENT ITSELF is what keeps the government in check?!?!?! Omg lmfao! Are you serious, CN?!?! Wooow. Wow I don't even know where to begin.

Seriously? You have heard of military coups? Corruption, Nepotism, bankbench MPs, opposition groups, The Judicary overuling the executive?

First of all, I had no idea you were such an authoritative tyrant.

Erm... I am just a realist.


That aside, let's look at Libya, shall we. Their fvcked up leader keeps sending the military to kill all the protesting citizens. The military therefore doesn't keep "the government" in check. The government doesn't keep the government in check. The upper class and government are pretty much synonymous. Money and Power are interchangeable. This has not been successful. If the citizens wanted change, the government would just have the military kill everybody and send in the riot police and shiz. The people have no power. You're pretty much enslaved and like it that way by your logic.

So if checks and balances don't work in every single instance then all checks and balances are to be discarded? Seriously come on, we can do better than this.


Unless the individual is constrain by external forces he will invariabily tyrannise others. That is human nature.

... What does that have to do with anarchy? Not only does anarchy have ways to "protect" against this,

What are the anarchist ways to protect against this.

but the same exact logic applies to government. You think there should essentially be some kind of fascist SINGLE authority tyrannical force. The scariest kind. Interesting.

Yea... that is exactly what I am arguing for, you are not strawmanning at all.

Show me a single successful anarchist 'state'/movement/region. Show me a single successful communist state. Show me a single successful fascist state. Show me the most successful dictatorship that currently exists in the world.

... What's your point?

It is a reciprocral demand for evidence, why should the burden of proof fall only on me?

Huh? You asked to see anarchist states. I gave you an entire list. You said they weren't anarchy. Well, anarchy has a specific definition whether you choose to delude yourself into thinking it doesn't exist or not. You'll explain to me why those examples weren't really anarchy and then I'll explain to you why you're wrong. And then you'll just keep saying "Well... no. I'm right. There are problems." And I will say, "Name a problem." You will say, "Here's a problem." I'll provide you the anarchist solution. You'll say, "That won't work." I'll say, "Why not?" You'll say, "It's never worked before... but but human nature..." I'll say, "It's not against human nature, and here are some examples."

You'll deny the examples. Rinse and repeat. This is a pointless, circular conversation.

I am sorry I questioned the sacred teachings.


You'll say anarchy doesn't last. I'll say only because it was taken over by force. No governments "last." They evolve and change. They get overthrown or reformed. Right now it's obvious "the people" have zero control or say in our government. People are just comfortable with it I guess. Not all of us, but meh. I think in this day and age our chance at any revolution is going to come via Wikileaks or some group like Anonoymous and hackers that completely use technology against the Man. That's the only way I can conceive of any real and dramatic change.

So anarchists should concentrate on trying to correct flaws in the system, not really on creating an idealistic government free zone that will only last about five minutes.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 1:58:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No rebuttal?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 10:01:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 12:51:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Well take the Icelandic Commonwealth, it had an extensive state court system headed by a supreme court. It made baptism compulsory. It banned paganism. Written legal code. Feudal military. Social classes.

Is that anarchist?

First, can I see proof that they banned paganism and made baptism compulsory? I'm curious to know who "It" is.

Second, feudal militaries and social classes are anarchist, yes (anarcho-capitalist).

Third, legal written codes can and would exist in anarchy, yes.

Finally, in regard to the courts, Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. Things like fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor were privatized. They had a high court/legislator, but no king or other central power. It was comprised of a bunch of little clans who had leaders that provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between members. You were not bound to a particular clan and could go to another if you were not satisfied.

So yes. Every single thing about this system is something = anarchy.

But those Governments also have clear geograhic barriers. In any case the nomadic idea is the least problematic. My main problem is an ideology that rallies against central Government tyranny unless you have opted in, and holds no problem with corporate tyranny.

Okay, and why wouldn't there be "geographic barriers" which btw are nothing more than imaginary lines under an anarchist system?

First, I would like you to explain why government tyranny is preferable to corporate tyranny.

Second, why would there be corporate tyranny? How so?

Seriously? You have heard of military coups? Corruption, Nepotism, bankbench MPs, opposition groups, The Judicary overuling the executive?

How are things like corruption and nepotism a point in your favor? All of these things represent awful things about the State. Ask yourself how often a military coup is for the people. Think of these days.

Erm... I am just a realist.

No, you're just stubborn :)

So if checks and balances don't work in every single instance then all checks and balances are to be discarded? Seriously come on, we can do better than this.

The system is inherently immoral, so reform wouldn't solve the problem.

http://www.debate.org...

What are the anarchist ways to protect against this.

As a reminder the "this" you're referring to is the individual's inevitable need to tyrannize others as a result of human nature.

Before I respond can I please see proof that it's inevitably human nature to want to tyrannize others? It seems the conversation comes down to this many times: that capitalism is a product of human nature and not the other way around. I've seen lots of historical, psychological, sociological, biological and anthropological evidence to the contrary. Maybe that's a debate I will have with someone someday.

But nevertheless I don't deny that there are "bad seeds" so to speak and that a protection agency will inevitably be needed. Disputes are a part of human nature.

So anyway suppose New York agency started trying to take over NJ (in this example the states represent communities). The NJ protection agency wasn't big or powerful enough to defend. Well at that point why not call on PA and MD police to help? It'd be in their interest or else NY might come after them next. Basically agencies would rally together to prevent that from happening.

Now, ancaps point out that this would likely not be an issue because it's not profitable to go to war. I think that's bullsh!t. I think that capitalism inevitably pushes for tyranny because people are desperate to grow, consume and profit. In that system there's every incentive to try to exploit other people, take over their resources and whatnot. That's why I'm not an ancap. However both ancaps and myself have given you an answer. Even if under an ancap society people tried to tyrannize others, their alternative may still be preferable to a single State.

Again I would also like an explanation as to why a competing agent tyrant poses more of a threat to you than a single tyrant that you have no choice but to obey.

Yea... that is exactly what I am arguing for, you are not strawmanning at all.

The State is a single tyrannical force. I call it fascist because of the single monopoly totalitarian position of force that it represents. I am not straw manning at all. That is literally what you support. Please explain to me how I straw manned you.

I am sorry I questioned the sacred teachings.

That's not what I suggested. Nice defense mechanism to make up for your lack of argument :)

So anarchists should concentrate on trying to correct flaws in the system, not really on creating an idealistic government free zone that will only last about five minutes.

No, because the system is inherently flawed. You should go for a more moral and just system, and then correct the "flaws" you see there.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 12:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 1:27:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Unless the individual is constrain by external forces he will invariabily tyrannise others. That is human nature.

"Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flat-headed parson to the vision-less dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature" ~ Emma Goldman
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 2:07:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/13/2011 10:01:19 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 12:51:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Well take the Icelandic Commonwealth, it had an extensive state court system headed by a supreme court. It made baptism compulsory. It banned paganism. Written legal code. Feudal military. Social classes.

Is that anarchist?

First, can I see proof that they banned paganism and made baptism compulsory? I'm curious to know who "It" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Now is this an example of Government coercion, if not how not? Is this really compatible with anarchism?


Second, feudal militaries and social classes are anarchist, yes (anarcho-capitalist).

Really? In a feudal system you owe military service to a Government figure, in this case an aristiocratic republic. The mere absence of a King does not make it anarchist.


Third, legal written codes can and would exist in anarchy, yes.

Okay, then I am godsands.


Finally, in regard to the courts, Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. Things like fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor were privatized. They had a high court/legislator, but no king or other central power. It was comprised of a bunch of little clans who had leaders that provided for defense and appointed judges to resolve disputes between members. You were not bound to a particular clan and could go to another if you were not satisfied.

So yes. Every single thing about this system is something = anarchy.

Okay.


But those Governments also have clear geograhic barriers. In any case the nomadic idea is the least problematic. My main problem is an ideology that rallies against central Government tyranny unless you have opted in, and holds no problem with corporate tyranny.

Okay, and why wouldn't there be "geographic barriers" which btw are nothing more than imaginary lines under an anarchist system?

Sorry the conversation has got confused, I thought you are arguing that these distinctions would be forgotten under anarchism.


First, I would like you to explain why government tyranny is preferable to corporate tyranny.

Second, why would there be corporate tyranny? How so?

Because water runs downhill...
No seriously, I firmly believe that humans naturally tyrannise other humans. In many state societies there are partial limits on to what extent a Government can do so. This often fails, but Government is the oppressor and the guarentor of rights. Take that away and you have unfettered personal interest which naturall leads to oppression.


Seriously? You have heard of military coups? Corruption, Nepotism, bankbench MPs, opposition groups, The Judicary overuling the executive?

How are things like corruption and nepotism a point in your favor? All of these things represent awful things about the State. Ask yourself how often a military coup is for the people. Think of these days.

There have been a couple of relatively benign military coups through the years. Cromwell, Sulla, even a couple of African ones in which they actually saved democracy.

The point is that it is not my job to defend an obviously crap system, but you to justify how it's complete absence is a virtue.


Erm... I am just a realist.

No, you're just stubborn :)


That as well.

So if checks and balances don't work in every single instance then all checks and balances are to be discarded? Seriously come on, we can do better than this.

The system is inherently immoral, so reform wouldn't solve the problem.

http://www.debate.org...


Haha I love it.

What are the anarchist ways to protect against this.

As a reminder the "this" you're referring to is the individual's inevitable need to tyrannize others as a result of human nature.

Before I respond can I please see proof that it's inevitably human nature to want to tyrannize others? It seems the conversation comes down to this many times: that capitalism is a product of human nature and not the other way around. I've seen lots of historical, psychological, sociological, biological and anthropological evidence to the contrary. Maybe that's a debate I will have with someone someday.


To be honest I don't really know how to quantify it. I've seen lots of historical, psychological, sociological, biological and anthropological evidence to support it. We will have to have that debate some day, but I don't really know where to start!

But nevertheless I don't deny that there are "bad seeds" so to speak and that a protection agency will inevitably be needed. Disputes are a part of human nature.

So anyway suppose New York agency started trying to take over NJ (in this example the states represent communities). The NJ protection agency wasn't big or powerful enough to defend. Well at that point why not call on PA and MD police to help? It'd be in their interest or else NY might come after them next. Basically agencies would rally together to prevent that from happening.

Isn't that just ultimately warlordism? Wouldn't a better system be one in which a central body has a monopoly on force, but is held to account to the people? Wouldn't a direct democracy, with a strong constitution fulfill that role better than anarchist or anarcho-capitalist system?

Now, ancaps point out that this would likely not be an issue because it's not profitable to go to war. I think that's bullsh!t.

That is utter bullsh!t I agree.

I think that capitalism inevitably pushes for tyranny because people are desperate to grow, consume and profit. In that system there's every incentive to try to exploit other people, take over their resources and whatnot. That's why I'm not an ancap. However both ancaps and myself have given you an answer. Even if under an ancap society people tried to tyrannize others, their alternative may still be preferable to a single State.

Again I would also like an explanation as to why a competing agent tyrant poses more of a threat to you than a single tyrant that you have no choice but to obey.


It doesn't. Which is why I support a single tyrant who lives in fear of being beheaded.

Yea... that is exactly what I am arguing for, you are not strawmanning at all.

The State is a single tyrannical force. I call it fascist because of the single monopoly totalitarian position of force that it represents. I am not straw manning at all. That is literally what you support. Please explain to me how I straw manned you.

You are arguing on absolutist principles, it is either an utter free for all, or a Hitler. In reality it's not like that is it?


I am sorry I questioned the sacred teachings.

That's not what I suggested. Nice defense mechanism to make up for your lack of argument :)

No you do! :-)

So anarchists should concentrate on trying to correct flaws in the system, not really on creating an idealistic government free zone that will only last about five minutes.

No, because the system is inherently flawed. You should go for a more moral and just system, and then correct the "flaws" you see there.

Ok.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2011 9:38:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 11:30:08 AM, annhasle wrote:
Now, in an anarchist society... There would be agencies. Within the society, there would be laws to keep order and advancement. The agencies cannot create a new policy (Policy A) themselves without the people accepting it -- if an agency tried to create a new law, they would have to get every agency to agree and to implement it. Otherwise, the people would leave and be represented by a different agency which isn't abusing their power. So... their power is limited. They can be held accountable for their actions. Etc.,etc.,etc.

Why exactly would an agency need to get permission to implement a policy (Policy A) from other agencies? If the people using that first agency like the policy, why should they bow to the "votes" of the rest of the people and agencies. That sounds exactly like a democratic state. By your definition in either case it is coercion.

On a side note, where exactly do the laws come from and how are they enforced (I'm assuming by the agencies).

And as another tidbit regarding the bringing up of Libya; the people are indeed checking government power and are fighting a civil war to do it.
Noblesse Oblige