Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- Anarchy is impossible -

Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 7:58:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In my opinion Anarchy is impossible. Any group that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those that do not have the power of resources.

Anarchy doesn't exist because it can't. Even in ancient times they developed tribes. Tribes are just small governments. A tribe that grows to the size of a country is no different from a tribe that is the size of a small forest. It is still a government system.

How about defending the Anarchist society against invaders?

Any scenario of anarchy defending itself towards a unified order is flawed with inefficiency. How are these little pockets of defense going to acquire the resources to fight such a war or develop the needed weaponry? In order to acquire these resources collectively it would take some form of government. All a government is...is a group that controls order. You can't fight a group of order with a group of disorder and expect he group of disorder to win.

Who would decide when and where to attack? When and where to defend? How many soldiers go where? Etc...etc...

An organized national defense force would be needed for protection.

This system of government would be called a Minarchy.

Anarchy cannot possibly exist for any longer than a short period of time.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:13:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
You should really put this up as an open debate challenge.

Nononononononnoooooooo, cause then he would be held accountable for the crap he's spewing. See, it's much more fun to bring up inane, third grade level objections in the forums that have already been answered dozens of times elsewhere, both here on DDO and in various academic publications, trollololololol!
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:19:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:18:15 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/12/2011 8:13:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
You should really put this up as an open debate challenge.

Nononononononnoooooooo, cause then he would be held accountable for the crap he's spewing. See, it's much more fun to bring up inane, third grade level objections in the forums that have already been answered dozens of times elsewhere, both here on DDO and in various academic publications, trollololololol!

If he won't I'll quote his post and open a debate using his opening.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:21:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:19:52 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 5/12/2011 8:18:15 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/12/2011 8:13:46 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
You should really put this up as an open debate challenge.

Nononononononnoooooooo, cause then he would be held accountable for the crap he's spewing. See, it's much more fun to bring up inane, third grade level objections in the forums that have already been answered dozens of times elsewhere, both here on DDO and in various academic publications, trollololololol!

If he won't I'll quote his post and open a debate using his opening.

You would seriously defend his arguments? He doesn't even know what anarchy is. He thinks it just means "disorder."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:33:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The "crap that he's spewing" seem to be typical objections. I for one am surprised at the amount of anarchists on DDO. I think this would make a great debate though and I would follow it. I take it anarchy is just defined as "a stateless society." It is a very radical view despite the vast amount of libertarians and anarchists here.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:33:31 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The "crap that he's spewing" seem to be typical objections.

Don't insult the Anarchist's Ideology, they have the government behind them!

*Zing*
kfc
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think it is a fair question. I see discussions on anarchism, and normally avoid them cause I'm genuinely uninterested. For most parts, I really don't see how a "true" anarchy would work.

If you had an anarchical society, called "Freedonia for example, that lived in a forest far in the mountains. They are successful in having no government in place. Now, another country, "Tyrannia" let's call it, who lives over the mountain gets word of a valuable reserve of gems hidden under "Freedonia". They first try to trade with "Freedonia", but then realize that there is no proper military in Freedonia. They may have a militia, but it is nowhere organized nor prioritized than in Tyrannia with it's huge state taxes. Tyrannia thus decides to simply to go in, and take over Freedonia.

Can we reasonably argue that Freedonia would stand a chance against Tyrannia?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:56:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:21:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

You would seriously defend his arguments? He doesn't even know what anarchy is. He thinks it just means "disorder."

"In my opinion Anarchy is impossible. Any group that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those that do not have the power of resources."

This is the interesting part as it appears to define anarchy so that it is negated in a society where any individual or group of individuals can cause undesired choice to be actualized. Here anarchy seems to be representing some kind of commune where all wealth is evenly distributed, and wealth has a very broad meaning (anything of value).
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 8:57:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:21:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

You would seriously defend his arguments?

You are being especially charitable, I assumed right away he meant a reverse Con challenge back to Lionheart.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:03:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:40:38 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I think it is a fair question. I see discussions on anarchism, and normally avoid them cause I'm genuinely uninterested. For most parts, I really don't see how a "true" anarchy would work.

If you had an anarchical society, called "Freedonia for example, that lived in a forest far in the mountains. They are successful in having no government in place. Now, another country, "Tyrannia" let's call it, who lives over the mountain gets word of a valuable reserve of gems hidden under "Freedonia". They first try to trade with "Freedonia", but then realize that there is no proper military in Freedonia. They may have a militia, but it is nowhere organized nor prioritized than in Tyrannia with it's huge state taxes. Tyrannia thus decides to simply to go in, and take over Freedonia.

Can we reasonably argue that Freedonia would stand a chance against Tyrannia?

Why is this a valid starting point?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:04:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I created the debate in honor of your request Cliff.

NOTE: The definitions and rules are clearly defined.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:07:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 9:04:53 PM, Lionheart wrote:
I created the debate in honor of your request Cliff.

NOTE: The definitions and rules are clearly defined.

You defined government as "a system of authority that people choose to follow." That's a terrible definition, and nobody is going to take that debate unless either change it or allow the contender to challenge it.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 9:28:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:40:38 PM, M.Torres wrote:
I think it is a fair question. I see discussions on anarchism, and normally avoid them cause I'm genuinely uninterested. For most parts, I really don't see how a "true" anarchy would work.

If you had an anarchical society, called "Freedonia for example, that lived in a forest far in the mountains. They are successful in having no government in place. Now, another country, "Tyrannia" let's call it, who lives over the mountain gets word of a valuable reserve of gems hidden under "Freedonia". They first try to trade with "Freedonia", but then realize that there is no proper military in Freedonia. They may have a militia, but it is nowhere organized nor prioritized than in Tyrannia with it's huge state taxes. Tyrannia thus decides to simply to go in, and take over Freedonia.

Can we reasonably argue that Freedonia would stand a chance against Tyrannia?

What if Freedonia is a really big, prosperous anarchist settlement and Tyrannia is like North Korea, only with a population 500. Freedonia gets word of a valuable reserve of gems hidden under Tyrannia. They first try to trade with Tyrannia, but then realize that there is no proper military in Tyrannia. They have a security force, but they're armed with baseball bats and rusty old muskets that don't fire anymore, so they just end up using them like bats anyway. By contrast, Freedonia has a booming economy. A bunch of guys from Freedonia simply decide to go in take over Tyrannia.

Can we reasonably argue that Tyrannia would stand a chance against Freedonia?

See what I did there?
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:34:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have the debate link here for you Cliff.

http://www.debate.org...
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:45:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 8:21:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

You would seriously defend his arguments? He doesn't even know what anarchy is. He thinks it just means "disorder."

Just like the Bible, the Koran, or any other piece of mystical enlightenment, no one is allowed to comment unless the have memorized the entire liturgy. And then, of course, only the enlightened are gifted with understanding the true essence that explains all.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:45:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/12/2011 8:21:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

You would seriously defend his arguments? He doesn't even know what anarchy is. He thinks it just means "disorder."

Just like the Bible, the Koran, or any other piece of mystical enlightenment, no one is allowed to comment unless the have memorized the entire liturgy. And then, of course, only the enlightened are gifted with understanding the true essence that explains all.

First of all, it's not as if I told him to go read and memorize Man, Economy, & State. It's a basic matter of consulting the Wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalism.

Second, it's not as if I think anyone who hasn't read the complete works of Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe is an idiot. I just get ticked off when people who have no idea what they're talking about feel to need to be critical rather than inquisitive.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:55:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jesus pinko, I didn't even have time to read the debate OP. Out of curiosity how many debates have been done since you joined which you were involved in % wise, what is the next closest member?
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:58:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you are so profound in your superior knowledge about the definition of Anarchy.

Then please.... Tell me...

What is the complete and totally accepted definition of Anarchy?

It seems to me that everyone can't really agree on the definition. not even Anarchists themselves.

So don't assume my inferior knowledge, unless you have facts.

Fact = I never said that I think anarchy just means "disorder".

You assume too much my friend.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:45:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Just like the Bible, the Koran, or any other piece of mystical enlightenment, no one is allowed to comment unless the have memorized the entire liturgy. And then, of course, only the enlightened are gifted with understanding the true essence that explains all.

Walk into an engineering lab without any knowledge of engineering and start ranting about how what they are trying to achieve is obviously impossible and/or make up your own definition of terms and then use them to create a biased argument.

If you are going argue anarchy is impossible then first it would be necessary to see what anarchist theory actually advocates, reference that being specific about what is claimed and then note why it is impossible giving either a retorting argument from theory of practice.

i.e. make an argument
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 11:48:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:58:50 PM, Lionheart wrote:
If you are so profound in your superior knowledge about the definition of Anarchy.

Then please.... Tell me...

What is the complete and totally accepted definition of Anarchy?

There isn't one, however, given that virtually all of the anarchists on this site are anarcho-capitalists and virtually every forum discussion involving anarchy is about this type of anarchism, it shouldn't be very difficult to settle on a definition appropriate in this context.

It seems to me that everyone can't really agree on the definition. not even Anarchists themselves.

http://lmgtfy.com...

So don't assume my inferior knowledge, unless you have facts.

Fact = I never said that I think anarchy just means "disorder".

False.

At 5/12/2011 7:58:25 PM, Lionheart wrote:
You can't fight a group of order with a group of disorder and expect he group of disorder to win.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 4:29:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:58:50 PM, Lionheart wrote:
If you are so profound in your superior knowledge about the definition of Anarchy.

Then please.... Tell me...

What is the complete and totally accepted definition of Anarchy?

It seems to me that everyone can't really agree on the definition. not even Anarchists themselves.

So don't assume my inferior knowledge, unless you have facts.

Fact = I never said that I think anarchy just means "disorder".

You assume too much my friend.

Oh dear.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 5:06:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course, political anarchists are usually too stupid to understand why anarchy looks ridiculous to an uninformed outside perspective.

Why would anyone bother looking into something that is so patently absurd?

The anarchists around here reek of pretentiousness. Most people are eager to inform others of something they believe in, but not the anarchists around here. Getting answers is like pulling teeth. They believe their ideology is so obvious that any questioning of it is trolling.

They are basically the arrogant atheist stereotype of economics/politics/etc.

Also, they wear buttons on their face, and say "OI! OI! THE ESTABLISHMENT!" a lot. How can you take them seriously? They are clearly just rebellious angsty dipsh!ts who don't realize the fine work that our state law enforcement brings on the community. Probably because they all snort coke, and drive drunk. Those silly anarchists. It's just a phase. What are kids going to pledge allegiance to when they start their school days(Which are state funded, by the way), SATAN?
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
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 5:19:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems that most of the people's view of Anarchy on this site just seem to be a different form of government. Hardly Anarchy.

Anarchists HAD to form some kind of structure... They new this. You say that you don't want a "state". But what you are advocating is just a different kind of "state".

You want to reinvent or redefine what a government is? Go ahead. It won't change the reality of the controlling system that is needed.

Call it what you want. Some form of government structure will always arise.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 6:09:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/13/2011 5:06:30 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Of course, political anarchists are usually too stupid to understand why anarchy looks ridiculous to an uninformed outside perspective.

Why would anyone bother looking into something that is so patently absurd?


The anarchists around here reek of pretentiousness. Most people are eager to inform others of something they believe in, but not the anarchists around here. Getting answers is like pulling teeth. They believe their ideology is so obvious that any questioning of it is trolling.

They are basically the arrogant atheist stereotype of economics/politics/etc.

Also, they wear buttons on their face, and say "OI! OI! THE ESTABLISHMENT!" a lot. How can you take them seriously? They are clearly just rebellious angsty dipsh!ts who don't realize the fine work that our state law enforcement brings on the community. Probably because they all snort coke, and drive drunk. Those silly anarchists. It's just a phase. What are kids going to pledge allegiance to when they start their school days(Which are state funded, by the way), SATAN?

This
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 7:12:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 10:50:59 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I just get ticked off when people who have no idea what they're talking about feel to need to be critical rather than inquisitive.
You made similar comments about anarchy prior to being an anarchist.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 7:45:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/13/2011 5:06:30 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Also, they wear buttons on their face, and say "OI! OI! THE ESTABLISHMENT!" a lot. [...] They are clearly just rebellious angsty dipsh!ts who [...] all snort coke, and drive drunk.

That is not all anarchists, that is just Kenyon, when he gets on a winning rampage he makes Charlie Sheen look like a droopy eyed armless child.