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

Question to all Anarchists

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 3:54:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Replace government with murder. Every society has been plagued with murders. That's doesn't mean it should be praised.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 3:56:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think I remember the answer. Apparently the anarchist answer was that agrarian society were easy to dominate due to lack of communication technology. Ever since then, society has had a preference for government since they never realized that life can exist without government. All modern day government are descendants of ancient governments. Due to advances in communication technology, a stateless society can easily be formed.

Some bullsh!t like that. I'm not an anarchist btw.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:27:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There you will find the difference between an anarcho-realist and an anarcho-idealist.

An anarcho-realist understands that we have and always will live in anarchy.

An anarcho-idealist believes that anarchy is something to strive for. The anarcho-idealist will never get what he/she wishes for.
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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 4:29:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 3:54:43 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Replace government with murder. Every society has been plagued with murders. That's doesn't mean it should be praised.

Straw man.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:48:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?

Explain that. Obviously there would be no positive law like don't do drugs or kill yourself but the only law would be protecting property rights(Body, land, house, possessions). In that event PDA's come in. http://jim.com...
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:53:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:48:39 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?

Explain that. Obviously there would be no positive law like don't do drugs or kill yourself but the only law would be protecting property rights(Body, land, house, possessions). In that event PDA's come in. http://jim.com...

We know that modern democracy works because we live in it. The burden of proof is on anarchists to show that anarchy will work better than the current system.

Okay, so if someone is robbed/assaulted and they can't afford a Private Detective Agency, how will they get revenge/justice?
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 5:56:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:53:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:48:39 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?

Explain that. Obviously there would be no positive law like don't do drugs or kill yourself but the only law would be protecting property rights(Body, land, house, possessions). In that event PDA's come in. http://jim.com...

We know that modern democracy works because we live in it. The burden of proof is on anarchists to show that anarchy will work better than the current system.

Explain works.

Okay, so if someone is robbed/assaulted and they can't afford a Private Detective Agency, how will they get revenge/justice?

The same argument can be employed to argue that the government should provide anything. How would poor people afford cars, food, housing, exc.?
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:06:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.

That's always been my stance. Anarchy is impossible given time. You may have a few years or even a decade or so of "pure anarchy" but inevitably hierarchies will reform. More likely, they would immediately form small governed communities.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:06:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.

That's always been my stance. Anarchy is impossible given time. You may have a few years or even a decade or so of "pure anarchy" but inevitably hierarchies will reform. More likely, they would immediately form small governed communities.

Market anarchists have no problem with hierarchy, that's left anarchists who hate it. And by small governed communities, do you mean small governed "voluntary" communities? Again, market anarchists have no problem with this.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 6:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:06:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.

That's always been my stance. Anarchy is impossible given time. You may have a few years or even a decade or so of "pure anarchy" but inevitably hierarchies will reform. More likely, they would immediately form small governed communities.

I personally wouldn't mind the badassery of warring factions in a post-apocolyptic world.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 10:35:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:12:37 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 6:06:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.

That's always been my stance. Anarchy is impossible given time. You may have a few years or even a decade or so of "pure anarchy" but inevitably hierarchies will reform. More likely, they would immediately form small governed communities.

Market anarchists have no problem with hierarchy, that's left anarchists who hate it. And by small governed communities, do you mean small governed "voluntary" communities? Again, market anarchists have no problem with this.

How do you define voluntary? Do you voluntarily live in America? There is nothing stopping you from moving to a nation with insecure borders. I'm sure you can get into somalia or any other third world nation easily. You can try to immigrate to another country.

Also, you state that anarchism is ideal, however you have no way of proving that the theory will work. A theory that can not work in practice but not in theory is useless. For example, I would be in favor of central planning, if I knew that the leader would be an omnipotent in knowledge and benevolent. However, these angels do not exist. If they did, they would never be elected to office.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 10:54:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Derp, the difference between an idealist and a realist.

Most anarchists are idealists. They are fvcking retarded.

An anarcho-realist is someone who looks at the world, and sees ANARCHY. People perceive order because they are incapable of sorting through the ungodly amount of bullsh!t that they are fed everyday.

Now, don't get me wrong, the state has great influence.. But we all still live in states with many laws that are randomly enforced.

Anarchy is, and always will be the reigning principle. Governments receive their authority because people believe they have authority. It is not necessary for a government to have big guns in order to keep stability.. It is only necessary that the people BELIEVE they have big guns. Even then, the governments control is only an illusion... Everyone violates the law. Everyone is a criminal. Most don't even realize it.. and their ignorance of their own unlawfulness is a testament to how much power the government actually has.

If you can imagine how much crime actually goes on as opposed to how much crime is actually delt with, the power of the state is shown for what it really is.. The state is a big motherfvcker with a stick that wants to enforce it's will on you, and will only do so if it realizes that you aren't complying with it's will. As long as the state thinks you are behaving nicely, it won't beat the fvck out of you.

Dealing with the state is no different than dealing with an idiotic individual.
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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:01:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 10:35:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/3/2011 6:12:37 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 6:06:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:43:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:39:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2011 3:51:22 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario? Isn't government a sign of an advanced, civilized society? Won't we end up like Somalia where drug lords reign supreme if we follow the ideals of Anarchy?

Technically, Somalia can be somewhat compared to the feudal system where barons are warlords and knights are guys with machine guns. There is no formal government, but it is not "anarchy" in the sense of lacking all forms of politics.

Since humans are self-interested and it would seem to naturally follow that in the event of a power vacuum new forces inevitably move in, wouldn't 'pure' anarchy be impossible and contrary to human nature, at least on a broad scale? It just seems very infeasible to me.

That's always been my stance. Anarchy is impossible given time. You may have a few years or even a decade or so of "pure anarchy" but inevitably hierarchies will reform. More likely, they would immediately form small governed communities.

Market anarchists have no problem with hierarchy, that's left anarchists who hate it. And by small governed communities, do you mean small governed "voluntary" communities? Again, market anarchists have no problem with this.

How do you define voluntary? Do you voluntarily live in America? There is nothing stopping you from moving to a nation with insecure borders. I'm sure you can get into somalia or any other third world nation easily. You can try to immigrate to another country.

Voluntary meaning without aggression. People living in a community together and mutually agreeing to live under a common code of which they do not force on others is what I would call voluntary.

Also, you state that anarchism is ideal, however you have no way of proving that the theory will work. A theory that can not work in practice but not in theory is useless. For example, I would be in favor of central planning, if I knew that the leader would be an omnipotent in knowledge and benevolent. However, these angels do not exist. If they did, they would never be elected to office.

The same can be said of any radical change in politics. You cannot definitively prove that minarchism would not fall into totalitarianism. Theoretical economics is good but not entirely needed, a lot of it is placed on a moral argument. No one has ever properly justified the State's legitimacy in excercising a monopoly on property protection and defense.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:25:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 11:01:29 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Voluntary meaning without aggression. People living in a community together and mutually agreeing to live under a common code of which they do not force on others is what I would call voluntary.


The US government isn't going to track you down If you flee the nation, so in a sense its voluntarily. There are multiple options. You can live in a third world nation, live in prison, or abide through the rules of government.

The same is true of all actions. I can voluntarily agree to work a job, but that's because the other options are to not receive a steady income.

You can still disobey the law. You still own your body and are not bond by their rules. You just have to suffer the consequences, just like one would have to suffer the consequences of any other decision.

The same can be said of any radical change in politics. You cannot definitively prove that minarchism would not fall into totalitarianism.

There's evidence of minarchism working. Governments have actually contracted in size. The Canadian government cut down its size of government. Minarchism turns to totalitarianism with a weak constitution and/or when the people do not start to care. The US government has become larger due to a greater demand in US size (damn liberals) and a constitution that has been trampled upon.

Theoretical economics is good but not entirely needed, a lot of it is placed on a moral argument. No one has ever properly justified the State's legitimacy in excercising a monopoly on property protection and defense.

It doesn't need justification, just proof that it will occur inevitably. I don't advocate anarchy because I believe it is impossible and will not necessarily defend property rights. There is no gurantee private defense will agree to defend property but instead attack property. Also, it is likely that private defense contractors will form mergers and kill competition until a totalitarian government forms. Basically, the best way is to try to tame the beast.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2011 1:42:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 10:54:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Derp, the difference between an idealist and a realist.

Most anarchists are idealists. They are fvcking retarded.

An anarcho-realist is someone who looks at the world, and sees ANARCHY. People perceive order because they are incapable of sorting through the ungodly amount of bullsh!t that they are fed everyday.

Now, don't get me wrong, the state has great influence.. But we all still live in states with many laws that are randomly enforced.

Anarchy is, and always will be the reigning principle. Governments receive their authority because people believe they have authority. It is not necessary for a government to have big guns in order to keep stability.. It is only necessary that the people BELIEVE they have big guns. Even then, the governments control is only an illusion... Everyone violates the law. Everyone is a criminal. Most don't even realize it.. and their ignorance of their own unlawfulness is a testament to how much power the government actually has.

If you can imagine how much crime actually goes on as opposed to how much crime is actually delt with, the power of the state is shown for what it really is.. The state is a big motherfvcker with a stick that wants to enforce it's will on you, and will only do so if it realizes that you aren't complying with it's will. As long as the state thinks you are behaving nicely, it won't beat the fvck out of you.

Dealing with the state is no different than dealing with an idiotic individual.

Most brilliant thing I've seen written.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 4:24:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hmm, this concept was completele new to me..
I was reading "Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism"; It talks about permanent defense contracts etc. This is a lot similar to the stuff we already have going on-countries. Let us say we start out with anarcho capitalism, then the defense provider would make money. The defense provider would become powerful, eventually it(defense agency) would diversify and eventually end up in something a lot similar to what we already have.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:09:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 4:24:55 AM, marcuscato wrote:
Hmm, this concept was completele new to me..
I was reading "Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism"; It talks about permanent defense contracts etc. This is a lot similar to the stuff we already have going on-countries. Let us say we start out with anarcho capitalism, then the defense provider would make money. The defense provider would become powerful, eventually it(defense agency) would diversify and eventually end up in something a lot similar to what we already have.

Assuming of course there are no other PDA's to snatch up it's customers when it tries to excercise compulsory rule over it's customers. ;)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 10:54:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Derp, the difference between an idealist and a realist.

Most anarchists are idealists. They are fvcking retarded.

An anarcho-realist is someone who looks at the world, and sees ANARCHY. People perceive order because they are incapable of sorting through the ungodly amount of bullsh!t that they are fed everyday.

Now, don't get me wrong, the state has great influence.. But we all still live in states with many laws that are randomly enforced.

Anarchy is, and always will be the reigning principle. Governments receive their authority because people believe they have authority. It is not necessary for a government to have big guns in order to keep stability.. It is only necessary that the people BELIEVE they have big guns. Even then, the governments control is only an illusion... Everyone violates the law. Everyone is a criminal. Most don't even realize it.. and their ignorance of their own unlawfulness is a testament to how much power the government actually has.

If you can imagine how much crime actually goes on as opposed to how much crime is actually delt with, the power of the state is shown for what it really is.. The state is a big motherfvcker with a stick that wants to enforce it's will on you, and will only do so if it realizes that you aren't complying with it's will. As long as the state thinks you are behaving nicely, it won't beat the fvck out of you.

Dealing with the state is no different than dealing with an idiotic individual.

So are you saying the state is an illusion? By anarchy do you mean inherent idealism? I suppose it is true that a Government only has power because we let them. I am just trying to figure out what you mean.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 5:48:39 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?

Explain that. Obviously there would be no positive law like don't do drugs or kill yourself but the only law would be protecting property rights(Body, land, house, possessions). In that event PDA's come in. http://jim.com...

See this is where anarchists redefine what government is. Anyone settling a dispute can be considered a de facto form of government. Maybe you mean that all governments should be voluntary in which case I might call that anarcho-volunteerism.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2011 12:28:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/6/2011 12:22:56 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:48:39 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:46:13 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:42:28 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:38:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:35:58 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
At 9/3/2011 5:30:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/3/2011 4:46:33 PM, Tim_Spin wrote:
^explain

I'll explain why it is a straw man. You could replace Anarchy with anything, good or bad. What if I replace anarchy with technology? Would you agree then?

You wrote: "Why do you think that nearly every country in the world besides Somalia has some form of government. Prehistoric humans lived in Anarchy as do many animals. However, all modern countries have a government in place. Why would every society choose to have a government if anarchy is such a desirable scenario?" Obviously this proves nothing of the supposedly moral superiority or efficiency of a government. All it does is play on the fact that everyone lives under a government. It's not an argument.

Red Herring. Wow you're on a roll today!

I was explaining why my analysis was not a straw man. I understand exactly what he was trying to say and responded accordingly.

What would anarchists do if someone in their society breaks a law?

Explain that. Obviously there would be no positive law like don't do drugs or kill yourself but the only law would be protecting property rights(Body, land, house, possessions). In that event PDA's come in. http://jim.com...

See this is where anarchists redefine what government is. Anyone settling a dispute can be considered a de facto form of government. Maybe you mean that all governments should be voluntary in which case I might call that anarcho-volunteerism.

Ancaps define government as a monopolist on defense, force, and law. One is not a de-facto government if one voluntarily settles disputes for someone so long as the two people came up to them voluntarily and asked me to. With your re-definition of government, a peer conflict resolution officer at a local McDonalds would be considered a government.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.