Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can someone explain Anarchy ?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā), has more than one colloquial definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:48:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:37:05 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
Basically no rules and free choice.

yeah it has never worked.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
mrbusy
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:52:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pure anarchism itself doesn't work. the reason is simple. it is not a ideology but a movement or tendency. It just 'happens' when a established power cannot sustain order. Anarchists revolt, and then slowly other ideology takes over because anarchist doesn't want to rule and abhor state power (they just dream about utopia thus fail in reality), while all other ideology readily rule its people.

So anarchism best works at the transition phase of civilizations. Anarchism works in sub-system of statepower (like distributed system in IT) or works in special period. I presume this era is for them for now.

I'm a communist by the way. Communism believes in state's power and actively use it in favor of majority of people even though individual freedom is somewhat restricted. t hus always anarchists and communist conflict each other.
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:52:46 PM, mrbusy wrote:
Pure anarchism itself doesn't work. the reason is simple. it is not a ideology but a movement or tendency. It just 'happens' when a established power cannot sustain order. Anarchists revolt, and then slowly other ideology takes over because anarchist doesn't want to rule and abhor state power (they just dream about utopia thus fail in reality), while all other ideology readily rule its people.

So anarchism best works at the transition phase of civilizations. Anarchism works in sub-system of statepower (like distributed system in IT) or works in special period. I presume this era is for them for now.

I'm a communist by the way. Communism believes in state's power and actively use it in favor of majority of people even though individual freedom is somewhat restricted. t hus always anarchists and communist conflict each other.

COMMUNIST!

*dramatic long gasp*
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:11:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anarchy doesn't work. Period.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:48:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 10:37:05 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
Basically no rules and free choice.

yeah it has never worked.

never worked? would you like to debate that?
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:21:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Anarchy is basically the state of having no positive or negative reward system monopolized by a sub-group of the population (in rare cases shared equally).

So, for instance, Denver and Colorado do have not have an anarchistic relationship, they have a democratic (or republic if you want to get technical) relationship in that both can be punished or rewarded by a higher power (federal government).

On the other hand, America and China have an anarchic relationship. This is one of the basics of international relations: states exist in a state of anarchy.

There is no super-government to tell China to behave. Over the years, governments have tried to form a super-government (WTO, EU, UN, NATO), but all refuse to give up their monopolization on punishment and reward. Some are more successful than others (the WTO has some successes punishing and rewarding behavior between nations effecting trade).

Nothing binds any state to a treaty other than wanting to project to others that future treaties will also be satisfied.

Anarchy "works" in the sense that it exists whenever a population lacks that organizating structure. Sometimes, the ability to reward and punish is shared equally between members of the population (direct democracy). However, it is anarchy when everyone stops adhering to whatever gets voted for and nothing is carried out.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:28:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

*Points a gun at reddj2's head and demands his money*
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anarchy comes from the Greek word Anarkhia, meaning lawlessness or leaderless. Anarkhia comes from the words "An" meaning "not", and "arkhos" meaning "leader".

Anarchists believe in no government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:55:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anarchy - no government; people left to their own devices.

But... people left to their own devices create governments.

So, to keep anarchy alive, you need a way of preventing people from creating governments. This would require some sort of centralized authority that governs people's actions - a government.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:12:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Anarchy is a silly concept whereby the same people that believe we aren't responsible for anything we do and that morality doesn't exist also believe that large numbers of people are mature, pragmatic, and rational enough to act cooperatively in an entirely ungoverned society without parameters or policing; thereby profiting from each other and themselves without needing to filter it through any sort of "society" or "establishment."

In other words, people who want life to be one big, long recess without realizing that they're belying the faculty that just fed them during lunchtime.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:16:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:28:32 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

*Points a gun at reddj2's head and demands his money*

This is of course, an example of statism (knowing Chrys as fairly sharp bean, this was likely his intention). One probable* outcome of anarchism (along with a slow devolution to statism) would be a gigantic widespread reduction in such behaviour.

(there's no central planning so I can't say how it would work out for certain - but there have been some rather bright chappies who have thought about this and their analysis would be the most likely outcome)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:18:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I acquire some land (without abusing any principles of private ownership), and make laws in that land, then where is anarchy? If it happens in many places in the world, we'll just have lands that we call states. I cannot see how humans would ever avoid making a centralized group rule some land. It's human nature without doubt.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:22:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:18:22 AM, Mirza wrote:
If I acquire some land (without abusing any principles of private ownership), and make laws in that land, then where is anarchy? If it happens in many places in the world, we'll just have lands that we call states. I cannot see how humans would ever avoid making a centralized group rule some land. It's human nature without doubt.

Not necessarily human nature, but rather, necessary for the sort of advancement that we're used to and currently demand. Consider how terrible we consider accounts of quality of life throughout history. However, to achieve the advancement we have, we must act cooperatively -- as the wisest realize, the greater our cooperation, the greater our capacity. Therefore, there will always be some establishment to influence people to act cooperatively toward a given goal -- which, in it's latter day, they've come to obscure altogether with society's acceptance, as our current progress has rendered us complacent.

As a result, instead of defining it, we use it to define our lives and ourselves. The establishments that we've developed to make us happy have instead taken over us, and only those at the top still realize that there is actual life past all the smoke and mirrors -- there are actual objects casting shadows on the wall.

Humanity needs to grow up.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:28:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:22:48 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/10/2012 8:18:22 AM, Mirza wrote:
If I acquire some land (without abusing any principles of private ownership), and make laws in that land, then where is anarchy? If it happens in many places in the world, we'll just have lands that we call states. I cannot see how humans would ever avoid making a centralized group rule some land. It's human nature without doubt.

Not necessarily human nature, but rather, necessary for the sort of advancement that we're used to and currently demand. Consider how terrible we consider accounts of quality of life throughout history. However, to achieve the advancement we have, we must act cooperatively -- as the wisest realize, the greater our cooperation, the greater our capacity. Therefore, there will always be some establishment to influence people to act cooperatively toward a given goal -- which, in it's latter day, they've come to obscure altogether with society's acceptance, as our current progress has rendered us complacent.

As a result, instead of defining it, we use it to define our lives and ourselves. The establishments that we've developed to make us happy have instead taken over us, and only those at the top still realize that there is actual life past all the smoke and mirrors -- there are actual objects casting shadows on the wall.

Humanity needs to grow up.
We've always demanded advances. Hierarchy is part of humankind, and it will be even under any form of anarchy. Still, I want someone to answer my questions. The idea of no state in a land seems fine at first, but with privately owned land I don't see how that can go far.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 8:36:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:28:17 AM, Mirza wrote:
We've always demanded advances. Hierarchy is part of humankind, and it will be even under any form of anarchy. Still, I want someone to answer my questions. The idea of no state in a land seems fine at first, but with privately owned land I don't see how that can go far.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

How could a "land with no state," but with a large collection of people, ever be interpreted as "fine" in a situation that isn't unrealistically hypothetical? How would they establish ownership? By simply claiming a given property and killing anyone that walks on it? What kind of economy would they have? Would they just depend on a barter system?

Does this mean that all of their technology and all of their science would be domestic? How on earth would they a.) keep up with the world economy; b.) protect their natural resources from neighboring landowners, particularly those which are governments; and c.) fill in gaps in their land's natural resources that they need, but which exist elsewhere?

How would land disseminate? As in, if one person just so happens to claim a large amount of land, what's to stop him? What's to stop him from eventually consuming surrounding properties until he takes ownership over the entire territory?

Anarchy is atavistic.
inferno
Posts: 10,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:08:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Itc creates fear in the status quo. It worked well during the Civil Rights era if you ask me.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 9:10:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Ah, there is your problem. You see it doesn't'.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:28:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everyone has it wrong or only partly right.

Anarchy is simply the way things are, how everything naturally is. The order that people tend to perceive is not nearly as orderly as thought.

When it comes to political/economic anarchism, there are two major schools of thought, and the difference is very subtle.

There are anarcho-idealists, who see the state as being set apart from other economic institutions. They see anarchy as a thinv to strive for.

Then there are anarcho-realists, who see the state as being just another, though highly influential economic institute. They see the world as being in a constant state of anarchy.

Is there truly order? At the base level, yes, but it isn't the state, it is physics. Chaos is the order of society.
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
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:34:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 11:58:33 PM, DanT wrote:
Anarchists believe in no government.

Government is inevitable if you want to participate within a society. Anarchists are okay with government. They don't like the State (which has a monopoly on force).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:36:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:12:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Anarchy is a silly concept whereby the same people that believe we aren't responsible for anything we do and that morality doesn't exist also believe that large numbers of people are mature, pragmatic, and rational enough to act cooperatively in an entirely ungoverned society without parameters or policing; thereby profiting from each other and themselves without needing to filter it through any sort of "society" or "establishment."

In other words, people who want life to be one big, long recess without realizing that they're belying the faculty that just fed them during lunchtime.

...So much fail in this post.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:36:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 11:28:58 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Everyone has it wrong or only partly right.

Including you...
President of DDO
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 12:15:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ren, you seem a bit confused on anarchy yourself so I shall endeavour to explain voluntarism (a euphemism for anarcho-capitalism by and large), and how one possible model of society might work. Obviously I'm merely human so I will leave stuff out or might not even know the answer off the top of my head so feel free to ask questions. I'll start by addressing your comments.

At 1/10/2012 8:12:39 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

Anarchy is a silly concept whereby the same people that believe we aren't responsible for anything we do

This maybe true of some whackos but not of any forms of anarchism I am aware of. Anarcho capitalism actually emphasises responsibility far more than our current governments! To clarify; there wouldn't be any welfare or other forms of social security outside of that provided by charity (more on that later)

and that morality doesn't exist
Well when I was an atheist I was a moral nihilist, and I still believe that is the most rational position for an atheist or agnostic to hold (or possibly even a theist - I'm not entirely sure about objective morality - but that is another argument for another day - if anyone wants to discuss that they can pm me). That aside - being a moral nihilist is not a necessary position for an anarchist. Some in fact use moral arguments against government. That is; that governments are acting immorally by forcefully governing.

also believe that large numbers of people are mature, pragmatic, and rational enough

I believe that these same people are not mature, pragmatic or rational enough to govern others. If an omnimax god were to govern us, I don't think it would be rational to be an anarchist, however, seeing as even governments who attempting to be benign are actually more incompetent in these areas than people acting as individuals, the folly lies with the statist.

to act cooperatively
Here is where I think you are completely wrong. Co-operating works. The free market works. Overall people gain so much more by co-operating than by aggression. Please note that competition does not imply lack of co-operation; it merely is the by product of co-operation between multiple actors indicating the fruitfulness of the co-operation.

in an entirely ungoverned society without parameters or policing;
Untrue; people tend to prefer safety to danger so will get insurance. The insurance companies will in turn hire people to protect those with insurance. The parameters will be whatever people wish them to be but don't confuse lack of desire for a monopoly on force with a desire for no parameters or rules.
thereby profiting from each other and themselves without needing to filter it through any sort of "society" or "establishment."

Well, yes, governments are inefficient, but societies (in the sense of communities) will still exist purely because co-operation works.

In other words, people who want life to be one big, long recess without realizing that they're belying the faculty that just fed them during lunchtime.

This seems pretty weak. I hope that I at least should have changed your mind sufficiently that you can see that anarchism is by no means a childish pursuit, even if I have not convinced you it would function better.
Again I must iterate that I have left many things out, and if anyone has any questions or observations please ask (in forum or by pm)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 2:20:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 8:16:06 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:28:32 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

*Points a gun at reddj2's head and demands his money*

This is of course, an example of statism (knowing Chrys as fairly sharp bean, this was likely his intention). One probable* outcome of anarchism (along with a slow devolution to statism) would be a gigantic widespread reduction in such behaviour.


(there's no central planning so I can't say how it would work out for certain - but there have been some rather bright chappies who have thought about this and their analysis would be the most likely outcome)

In the absence of government and law, individuals are free to plunder. I was demonstrating how anarchy works.

Now, anarchy does inevitably give way to some form of government; the insurance companies mentioned earlier in this thread would be examples. In fact, most of the people who defend anarchy on this site, when pressed to describe how an anarchic society would work, instead describe some kind of corporate minarchic society.

*awaits the wrath of the anarchists*
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 4:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 2:20:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/10/2012 8:16:06 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/9/2012 11:28:32 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 1/9/2012 9:51:52 PM, reddj2 wrote:
Im still lost on how it works.

*Points a gun at reddj2's head and demands his money*

This is of course, an example of statism (knowing Chrys as fairly sharp bean, this was likely his intention). One probable* outcome of anarchism (along with a slow devolution to statism) would be a gigantic widespread reduction in such behaviour.


(there's no central planning so I can't say how it would work out for certain - but there have been some rather bright chappies who have thought about this and their analysis would be the most likely outcome)

In the absence of government and law, individuals are free to plunder. I was demonstrating how anarchy works.

Now, anarchy does inevitably give way to some form of government; the insurance companies mentioned earlier in this thread would be examples. In fact, most of the people who defend anarchy on this site, when pressed to describe how an anarchic society would work, instead describe some kind of corporate minarchic society.

*awaits the wrath of the anarchists*

Yes, I suppose that is one way of describing it. We merely propose something without force (polycentric law means choice and no monopoly on force).
However, the government does point a gun at our face and demand money. That is called tax.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 4:37:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 11:36:04 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 1/10/2012 8:12:39 AM, Ren wrote:
Anarchy is a silly concept whereby the same people that believe we aren't responsible for anything we do and that morality doesn't exist also believe that large numbers of people are mature, pragmatic, and rational enough to act cooperatively in an entirely ungoverned society without parameters or policing; thereby profiting from each other and themselves without needing to filter it through any sort of "society" or "establishment."

In other words, people who want life to be one big, long recess without realizing that they're belying the faculty that just fed them during lunchtime.

...So much fail in this post.

Lol, enlighten me. :)