Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Doubts about Anarchism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 3:26:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
(Note: when referring to "Anarchism" here it is meant to be my particular brand of Individualist Anarchism)

I've begun having doubts about my ideology once again. I've been able to hold my ground and dismiss the usual attacks, which generally just stem from not comprehending how Anarchism works, for awhile now. The best skepticism against Anarchism are those which come from Anarchists so here are two which I have had recently:

Animal rights:

It is evident to me that an Anarchist society can properly function based on human association but it has just now occurred to me that animals are left without a voice. Animals would not be able to organize themselves for their rights like humans can in an Anarchist society and there would not be any laws to protect them. This is a big problem for me, a vegetarian, since I consider anything done to animals to have the same ethical warrant as those same things done to humans. It seems to me that in an Anarchist society animal abuse would rise whether or not it makes up for it in abolishing abuses done to humans.

Funny enough, right after this thought came to me I ran into an article about Natalie Portman declaring that eating meat should be illegal. I can sympathize with that position.

Children's rights:

Anarchists get into a whole mess of trouble when we need to consider children. We advocate the abolition of hierarchy yet we recognize that young children just can't make it on their own without guidance. That is, after-all, how nature intended it. So how does an Anarchist fix this internal inconsistency? Well, frankly, I don't know. That's the problem. I have come up with an idea which I really love that I call communal parenting but it still implies the older ruling the young to a degree even though it essentially eliminates the possibility for parental indoctrination or child-abuse. It also implies democracy. I have been against democracy, as an Anarchist.

I very well may change once again. *sigh*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 10:46:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy is an absurdity, unless you are willing to make the stretch necessary to accept the fact that the society we live in is intrinsically anarchistic.
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
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 11:01:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 10:46:53 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is an absurdity, unless you are willing to make the stretch necessary to accept the fact that the society we live in is intrinsically anarchistic.

"Anarchism means war,—war upon all government, all authority, and all forms of slavery." - Victor Yarros
"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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 11:17:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 11:01:30 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/24/2011 10:46:53 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is an absurdity, unless you are willing to make the stretch necessary to accept the fact that the society we live in is intrinsically anarchistic.

"Anarchism means war,—war upon all government, all authority, and all forms of slavery." - Victor Yarros

OI! OI! THE EXTABLISHMENT! OI! OI!
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
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 11:24:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 3:26:41 AM, FREEDO wrote:

It seems to me that in an Anarchist society animal abuse would rise whether or not it makes up for it in abolishing abuses done to humans.

Freedo, I don't see why you would think this, it is not like animals have a voice in either case. Why would you feel in a society where people are given more individual freedom and rights that this would cause animals to suffer more?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 12:17:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why don't you just understand that its not possible to argue for every one of you preferences, like animal rights.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
These issues have been addressed in great detail already by numerous people on both the left and right sides of the anarchist spectrum. There are a variety of answers. Do you seriously think that the state is necessary to prevent the abuse of children and animals? It has already clearly failed to do so.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 4:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wait!!!! Your telling me that a statist society solves these problems!? Wow, that's great! And I always thought that a statist society slaughters animals by the millions and the average age of homelessness was 9. Thank goodness for the state!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 4:26:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I very well may change over 9000 times again. *sigh*
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 4:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 3:26:41 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Animal rights:

It is evident to me that an Anarchist society can properly function based on human association but it has just now occurred to me that animals are left without a voice. Animals would not be able to organize themselves for their rights like humans can in an Anarchist society and there would not be any laws to protect them. This is a big problem for me, a vegetarian, since I consider anything done to animals to have the same ethical warrant as those same things done to humans. It seems to me that in an Anarchist society animal abuse would rise whether or not it makes up for it in abolishing abuses done to humans.

Funny enough, right after this thought came to me I ran into an article about Natalie Portman declaring that eating meat should be illegal. I can sympathize with that position.

Not that I'm defending Anarchism(eww), but animal rights wouldn't be enforced either way. Humans are technically at the top of the food chain, it's a fact of nature so regardless we'll continue eating meat. We're naturally omnivoures anyway. Also, there are more humane ways to slaughter an animal since it's inevitable they'll be slaughtered anyway.

However, if you're talking about things such as animal abuse, neglect, etc. then I agree with you. There needs to be somebody around to enforce it, same with children's rights since they're particularly vulnerable.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 6:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 4:32:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
We're naturally omnivoures anyway.

It could technically be argued that we are naturally rapists and murderers, doesn't mean it's good to do those things. :)
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 7:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Isn't OP still ancom? Here's more:

http://www.debate.org...
Capital must be private or there is no incentive to maintain it. No stake means no responsibility.

http://www.debate.org...
Individuals will not maintain things that others may maintain.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 6:56:17 PM, feverish wrote:
At 4/24/2011 4:32:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
We're naturally omnivoures anyway.

It could technically be argued that we are naturally rapists and murderers, doesn't mean it's good to do those things. :)

I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else. Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:02:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 4:10:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wait!!!! Your telling me that a statist society solves these problems!? Wow, that's great! And I always thought that a statist society slaughters animals by the millions and the average age of homelessness was 9. Thank goodness for the state!:

Heh... Very true. But don't forget that statism and anarchism are extremes at polar opposites. There's a whole lot of middle ground that could be explored there. One could conceivably be able to run a small government with animal welfare in mind.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:05:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/24/2011 6:56:17 PM, feverish wrote:
At 4/24/2011 4:32:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
We're naturally omnivoures anyway.

It could technically be argued that we are naturally rapists and murderers, doesn't mean it's good to do those things. :)

I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else. Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?:

I think he's referring to something simple, like, should an NFL quarterback legally be allowed to force his dogs in to dog fighting and then electrocute the losers?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:08:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else.

Speciesist.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?

There are varying degrees of sentience which we base such decisions on. Plants don't possess much sentience.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:11:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 8:02:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/24/2011 4:10:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wait!!!! Your telling me that a statist society solves these problems!? Wow, that's great! And I always thought that a statist society slaughters animals by the millions and the average age of homelessness was 9. Thank goodness for the state!:

Heh... Very true. But don't forget that statism and anarchism are extremes at polar opposites. There's a whole lot of middle ground that could be explored there. One could conceivably be able to run a small government with animal welfare in mind.

Kind of hard to get the animals to state a claim on which relief can be granted. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Heh... Very true. But don't forget that statism and anarchism are extremes at polar opposites. There's a whole lot of middle ground that could be explored there. One could conceivably be able to run a small government with animal welfare in mind.

Kind of hard to get the animals to state a claim on which relief can be granted. ^_^:

I'm a firm believer in the right to arm bears! :)

http://www.google.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 8:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/24/2011 6:56:17 PM, feverish wrote:
At 4/24/2011 4:32:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
We're naturally omnivoures anyway.

It could technically be argued that we are naturally rapists and murderers, doesn't mean it's good to do those things. :)

I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else. Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?

That's fair enough. I personally draw an entirely arbitrary line at mammals. I was just trying to point out the logical fallacy of appealing to nature.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:01:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 8:14:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Heh... Very true. But don't forget that statism and anarchism are extremes at polar opposites. There's a whole lot of middle ground that could be explored there. One could conceivably be able to run a small government with animal welfare in mind.

Kind of hard to get the animals to state a claim on which relief can be granted. ^_^:

I'm a firm believer in the right to arm bears! :)

http://www.google.com...

You don't want to arm me.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 8:08:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else.

Speciesist.

And there's something wrong with that? I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?

There are varying degrees of sentience which we base such decisions on. Plants don't possess much sentience.

"We"? I dunno about you, but I could just as arbitrarily base it on biological humanity as on sentience.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:09:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Animal rights:

...Funny enough, right after this thought came to me I ran into an article about Natalie Portman declaring that eating meat should be illegal. I can sympathize with that position.

Making everything you don't want true -> illegal does not always fix the problem. Animal rights would be a particularly troublesome thing to legislate, considering humans naturally consume meat for sustainance.

This is why I propose sustainable communities - by it's very nature, it works to sustain animal rights. If anything, it is solely for that purpose: keeping civilization out of nature's way so that nature can continue to function in its normal capacity. I do not base morality off of pain, suffering, justice, or the capitalist notion of being able to "succeed." I base morality off of utility. IOWs, instead of thinking about being moral in the sense of harming nature, I think about morality in terms of bettering civilization - because I believe these two goals are not mutually exclusive, even if they currently are under capitalism.

Protecting nature has to do with protecting natural resources. You absolutely cannot protect natural resources without simultaneously protecting the very best interests of animals. Sust com puts a check on the natural size of each commune by how well it is interacting with the environment. Instead of the paradigm being business interests versus environmentalists (who in turn need bureacracy in the heaviest of fashionds, i.e., the EPA is the largest governmental bureacracy in terms of regulations and $ spent), the paradigm is now simply allowing citizens to plan their commune and then decide how they want to control the size and the way they produce to keep their commune pristine and well kept.

Children's rights:

1) Parents are going to look out for their children's interests. That cannot and willnot ever change.

2) Communes are going to have a vested interest in producing children that are free from the emotional problems associated with parental negligence. In our current society, this is a conflict of interests, because individualism keeps kids sheltered from outside neighbors. In a society where people are more integrated, these things will tend to be exposed more quickly and dealt with much more soundly.

In the 1950s, people's communities were smaller and more in line with sust com. If little Billie drove his bicycle down the street, he would encounter a bunch of neighbors of whom which he was familiar. This is a much safer paradigm to raise children in than we have now. Oh yeah, not to mention most men could let their wives refrain from working while no one needed credit or loans to buy a house. Just jing.

I very well may change once again. *sigh*

Then you must have something particular in mind to address these interests. Government?
kfc
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 9:03:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2011 8:08:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else.

Speciesist.

And there's something wrong with that?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it since I'm a meat eater. I think since much of the animals we eat don't really have future's to live for, they aren't losing anything by dying. Of course, I am against methods that cause suffering though.

I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

I don't know that I've ever defined morality in such a way. I thought morality applied to all sentient beings.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?

There are varying degrees of sentience which we base such decisions on. Plants don't possess much sentience.

"We"? I dunno about you, but I could just as arbitrarily base it on biological humanity as on sentience.

Ok...
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:20:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 9:16:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/24/2011 9:03:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2011 8:08:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/24/2011 7:39:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I honestly don't really give a sh*t about animal rights, at least not when there's humans in this world who still don't even have full rights. I'd rather focus on our own species first before focusing on everything else.

Speciesist.

And there's something wrong with that?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it since I'm a meat eater. I think since much of the animals we eat don't really have future's to live for, they aren't losing anything by dying. Of course, I am against methods that cause suffering though.

I love being a carnivore.

I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

I don't know that I've ever defined morality in such a way. I thought morality applied to all sentient beings.

Not if you define it differently. If you give up the whole "objective moral facts" thing, you can do some cool stuff with ethics.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start demanding plant rights too?

There are varying degrees of sentience which we base such decisions on. Plants don't possess much sentience.

"We"? I dunno about you, but I could just as arbitrarily base it on biological humanity as on sentience.

Ok...

Yep.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:23:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cody Franklin wrote:
And there's something wrong with that? I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

This is pretty much what I said in my post, in a sense. If we frame morality in the reference of maintaining nature for the sake of civilization, then we've effectively aligned our interests towards animals and there is no further need for any type of law.
kfc
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:25:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 9:23:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Cody Franklin wrote:
And there's something wrong with that? I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

This is pretty much what I said in my post, in a sense. If we frame morality in the reference of maintaining nature for the sake of civilization, then we've effectively aligned our interests towards animals and there is no further need for any type of law.

I think the difference is the points we were individually making. :P
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:29:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 9:25:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2011 9:23:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Cody Franklin wrote:
And there's something wrong with that? I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

This is pretty much what I said in my post, in a sense. If we frame morality in the reference of maintaining nature for the sake of civilization, then we've effectively aligned our interests towards animals and there is no further need for any type of law.

I think the difference is the points we were individually making. :P

Sorry I got carried away with the anarchism for a second. I meant to say that you seem to agree that morality can be based on humanity apart from worrying about 'animal rights.' The trick is to be able to understand how helping nature helps people...
kfc
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 8:02:19 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/24/2011 4:10:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Wait!!!! Your telling me that a statist society solves these problems!? Wow, that's great! And I always thought that a statist society slaughters animals by the millions and the average age of homelessness was 9. Thank goodness for the state!:

Heh... Very true. But don't forget that statism and anarchism are extremes at polar opposites. There's a whole lot of middle ground that could be explored there. One could conceivably be able to run a small government with animal welfare in mind.

I'm actually not an anarchist. I believe that at the very least, the government's best justification is a pseudo-monopoly on force. Otherwise the protection of life, liberty, and property would be impossible. The state of anarchy can only exist as a transitional state to a dictatorship or massive violence. I've read Robert Murphy's chaos theory. I thought it was a good read, however, it did not convince me.

However, i think FREEDO gave possibly the two worst examples you could give to justify the state.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 10:00:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 9:29:00 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/24/2011 9:25:23 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/24/2011 9:23:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Cody Franklin wrote:
And there's something wrong with that? I mean, if we define morality solely as a way to achieve human good, and therefore as something solely concerned with humans, the problem is gone.

This is pretty much what I said in my post, in a sense. If we frame morality in the reference of maintaining nature for the sake of civilization, then we've effectively aligned our interests towards animals and there is no further need for any type of law.

I think the difference is the points we were individually making. :P

Sorry I got carried away with the anarchism for a second. I meant to say that you seem to agree that morality can be based on humanity apart from worrying about 'animal rights.' The trick is to be able to understand how helping nature helps people...

What I agree is that you can define morality to basically mean whatever you want. You can just as easily base it on pain and death, and it would be as legitimate as a humanist morality.

Otherwise, though, it's not that you're helping nature to help people. "Nature" isn't a conscious entity, and doesn't get helped or harmed. It can be changed, but, in a world devoid of agents, a planet like Mercury or Venus is no worse than Earth. All you're doing in "helping nature" is helping people in a manner less direct than throwing money or medicine at them.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 3:53:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you feel bad about it, you can donate some of newly untaxed wage to a local, privately-organised charity for animal rights.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...