Total Posts:141|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchy

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:43:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've never really understood people who believe in anarchy, and don't have quite a grip on understanding their point of views. Are there any anarchists here, that can explain to me their viewpoint on this subject? I may dis-agree with you, just a fair warning, but I mainly want to see things from your point of view, and at least try to understand.

Please state your opinions on why Anarchy would work, and how it would be better for society.

Oh, and watch this video, for your entertainment :)
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WKUK are on of the best current sketch comedy groups.

And I agree, anarchy is not a feasible state of existence at this point.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 6:08:12 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
WKUK are on of the best current sketch comedy groups.

And I agree, anarchy is not a feasible state of existence at this point.

*waits for Cody_Franklin*
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:11:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 6:08:51 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 6:08:12 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
WKUK are on of the best current sketch comedy groups.

And I agree, anarchy is not a feasible state of existence at this point.

*waits for Cody_Franklin*

I'm not excluding minarchy from the realm of possibility.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 6:22:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's so hard to understand about people who support anarchy? Just the fact that it's different from the status quo?

There are all sorts of anarchists. Anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian socialists... Some oppose the state for different reasons, though they often overlap. For instance, many anarchists believe that the state is predisposed to waging war, which anarchists generally view as mass murder. States also have the tendency to collect taxation from its citizens, which many anarchists view as theft on a very large scale. But they all tend to agree that either the state is an unjustified institution, or we would be better off without the state, or both.

I think most anarchists agree on the negative effects of having a group in society which easily and regularly gets cheered on by much of the population it probably brainwashed for thieving and murdering. The state is in and of itself a violent, oppressive, freedom stifling institution. Is it really so difficult to observe most governments and read history and come to the conclusion that a voluntary society, where everybody is not ruled over by governments which depend on highly organized methods of theft and murder, is preferable?

All organized power structures in society, where typically a few people have a large amount of power over massive groups, should be viewed skeptically and must be proven to be legitimate. It's very dangerous to just grant power to people unquestionably, especially when they claim the right to much of your income, prohibit you from doing certain things with your body, etc. If this stuff is going on, there'd better be a pretty solid justification for it. And yet, with the most successful organized power structures, religions and states, they conveniently demand faith from people in their existence, and try to stifle dissent. It seems that it should be the opposite, where we subject these institutions to the most intense fact checking and scrutiny.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:09:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anarchy only works when you have a small group of people (who all trust each other) who are very very isolated from the rest of society and live in a place that hasnt already been heavily modernized by human occupation.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:09:56 PM, imabench wrote:
Anarchy only works when you have a small group of people (who all trust each other) who are very very isolated from the rest of society and live in a place that hasnt already been heavily modernized by human occupation.

Conjecture?
: 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.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think I have to agree with TUF. I find the fact that people believe anarchy is a better thing than an overarching state kind of amusing, but I think most of my amusement mainly just comes from the fact that I'm ignorant as to what their actual standpoint is. I may ask questions and discuss (friendly, as I'm really just interested in figuring out either the basics or specifics of a certain anarchist view) how it works and why they view something in the way that they do.

I read over jat's posts, but I'm just a little curious as to why they view things the way they view it.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyways, Anarchy has worked effectively for several groups in the past. In fact, it was so effective for Sikhs through Sarbat Khalsa that the Indian government actually outlawed it in order to prevent Sikhs from maintaining their autonomous status.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?


2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:30:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:25:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:09:56 PM, imabench wrote:
Anarchy only works when you have a small group of people (who all trust each other) who are very very isolated from the rest of society and live in a place that hasnt already been heavily modernized by human occupation.

Conjecture?

(i dont know what that means)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:27:06 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Anyways, Anarchy has worked effectively for several groups in the past. In fact, it was so effective for Sikhs through Sarbat Khalsa that the Indian government actually outlawed it in order to prevent Sikhs from maintaining their autonomous status.

source please <3
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:32:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:29:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?

Sarbat Khalsa, Anarchist Catalonia, Somalia are all good examples.

2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?

All right. If a woman derives pleasure from being raped, is it moral for you to rape her? No. Rape is an action that is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences.

Anarchy is more moral because no involuntarily coercion is inherently involved in Anarchy. State action involves involuntarily coercion.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:38:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:27:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
If anarchy ever happened people would just form a government again

This. It's human nature. There is incentive for people to form their own communal government for stability and more cooperation, and those governments will inevitably grow.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:41:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:29:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?

Sarbat Khalsa,

Can i have a source for this? Because all I am getting from my google search is a declaritive assembly of the Khalsa at Amirata in the 18th century. It is a political institution.

Anarchist Catalonia,

"Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies."
—Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936"

"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction."
—Diego Abad de Santillan, editor of Solidaridad Obrera"

I also believe that much of Catolina was taken over by trade unions, not exactly anarchy as it was controlled...by trade unions.

Somalia are all good examples.

Somalia is considered a Federal Republic.

Your examples were havens of lawlessness.


2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?

All right. If a woman derives pleasure from being raped, is it moral for you to rape her? No. Rape is an action that is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences.

So S&M and BDSM are automatically wrong within themselves? Also, prove rape is an action that is wrong within itself. And no, I am not saying rape is okay.


Anarchy is more moral because no involuntarily coercion is inherently involved in Anarchy. State action involves involuntarily coercion.

Proof? If you exist within society, you implicitly are saying you will follow societies rules. You agree by existing within the bounds of society.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:25:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:09:56 PM, imabench wrote:
Anarchy only works when you have a small group of people (who all trust each other) who are very very isolated from the rest of society and live in a place that hasnt already been heavily modernized by human occupation.

Conjecture?

But humans tend to coalesce around an authority,...it's almost primal, and unfortunately, it is human nature to control other humans. I don't know the economics of anarchy, I don't know the ethics of it (not that I'd agree with it if I did), but I do know that it is going against the behavioral persuasions of human nature. It's an ideology that's going no where, no time soon (I mean, we can't even nominate a Libertarian who is more honest than any politician on the national stage),...so it just doesn't seem worth advocating or worth learning about.
"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
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:41:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:29:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?

Sarbat Khalsa,

Can i have a source for this? Because all I am getting from my google search is a declaritive assembly of the Khalsa at Amirata in the 18th century. It is a political institution.

Anarchist Catalonia,

"Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies."
—Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936"

"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction."
—Diego Abad de Santillan, editor of Solidaridad Obrera"

I also believe that much of Catolina was taken over by trade unions, not exactly anarchy as it was controlled...by trade unions.

Somalia are all good examples.

Somalia is considered a Federal Republic.

Your examples were havens of disorder and immorality


2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?

All right. If a woman derives pleasure from being raped, is it moral for you to rape her? No. Rape is an action that is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences.

So S&M and BDSM are automatically wrong within themselves? Also, prove rape is an action that is wrong within itself. And no, I am not saying rape is okay.


Anarchy is more moral because no involuntarily coercion is inherently involved in Anarchy. State action involves involuntarily coercion.

Proof? If you exist within society, you implicitly are saying you will follow societies rules. You agree by existing within the bounds of society.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:44:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can't an anarchist just as easily ask for proof that statism works or would be "better for society" (whatever that means)? I've noticed that people generally throw an incredible burden of proof on anarchy, they just flat out presume it does not "work" (as if the state does?). It's not that anarchy will make everything perfect, but as someone from here put it (cant remember who), as much as humans fvck eachother over there's no reason to believe that implementing a monopoly of violence and extortion will make anything better.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:45:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:41:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:32:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:29:50 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:42 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?

Sarbat Khalsa,

Can i have a source for this? Because all I am getting from my google search is a declaritive assembly of the Khalsa at Amirata in the 18th century. It is a political institution.

Anarchy is not devoid of political institutions. Anarchy is the absence of a state. Government exists in Anarchy vis a vis the people.
Anarchist Catalonia,

"Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies."
—Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936"

"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction."
—Diego Abad de Santillan, editor of Solidaridad Obrera"

I also believe that much of Catolina was taken over by trade unions, not exactly anarchy as it was controlled...by trade unions.

Somalia are all good examples.

Somalia is considered a Federal Republic.

Somalia is labeled a Federal Republic by the UN, but it has no functional government.
Your examples were havens of lawlessness.

What is law? I'd prefer lawlessness to oppressive and coercive law any day.

2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?

All right. If a woman derives pleasure from being raped, is it moral for you to rape her? No. Rape is an action that is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences.

So S&M and BDSM are automatically wrong within themselves?
No, because those are entirely consensual.
Also, prove rape is an action that is wrong within itself. And no, I am not saying rape is okay.

Rape is an action that is wrong in itself because it violates an individual's ability to choose to consent. It strips her of her autonomy.

Anarchy is more moral because no involuntarily coercion is inherently involved in Anarchy. State action involves involuntarily coercion.

Proof? If you exist within society, you implicitly are saying you will follow societies rules. You agree by existing within the bounds of society.

LOL, why am I implicitly saying it? My property belongs to me, not the state. The state has no right to say "Live in our society or leave your property!" The bounds of society are not supposed to take over things that belong to me.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just asking for an across the board explanation is too general. There are several aspects to anarchism.

For instance, philosophically anarchists reject that the State possesses any actual legitimacy or that it has the moral right to enforce its edicts and forcefully prohibit competing institutions from arising within its supposed borders. There are a few arguments for it. One is decidedly Kantian in nature. It's argued that we have a duty to be autonomous and the State is necessarily incompatible with that. Another is based off the fact that the State can't really work as an institution to stop crime when it itself is founded on such a thing (theft, threat of violence). William Godwin originated philosophical anarchism while Robert Paul Wolff developed it in its Kantian form (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Then there are the utilitarian anarchists with no real moral commitment to freedom or moral case against the State. They simply think that goods which are traditionally regarded as public goods (inexcludables) can actually be provided on the market and that the market would provide them in a more efficient and overall better quality way by virtue of being subject to ordinary market mechanisms. David Friedman is perhaps the main proponent (http://en.wikipedia.org...) . Others draw on public choice theory and posit that even if market failure can be shown for some services, the incentive structures inherent in the State don't offer it as a utilitarian alternative. James M. Buchanan is a good author to look into to learn about this school, though I'm not sure if he was an anarchist.

After that are the anarchists who see the State as an extension of and as a necessary condition in order for capitalism and the system of property to exist. They're against capitalism so they're naturally against the institution which keeps it in place. Their anti-statism is in many cases secondary to their anti-capitalism. These people generally fall into the ranks of anarcho-communism (following Kropotkin) or collectivist anarchism (following Bakunin).

Another aspect of anarchism is in relation to the "radical libertarians" who take the ideas of classical liberalism and modern libertarianism to their farthest limits. They take the maxim "the government is best which governs least" to its logical necessitation. They usually subscribe to some Lockean theory of property and are against the State because it by its very existence must violate private property rights as well as the self ownership of its constituents. Murray Rothbard is perhaps the best known proponent of this version (anarcho-capitalism) with Hans Hoppe being a popular current proponent with his argumentation ethics approach to natural rights (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Between the AnCommunism of Kropotkin and the AnCapitalism of Rothbard are the mutualists and early American individualist anarchists. They usually oppose the State not because they see it as existing mostly to benefit a capital class and mutualist economics holds capitalism (as we know it) to have only been possible through intervention by the State in favor of the capital class. They generally hold sympathy for the labor movement as they belief labor is in an inequitable bargaining relationship because of State intervention (resulting in the existence of wage labor).

They hold a middle ground between capitalism and communism, emphasizing the mutual aid aspect of AnCommunism (worker cooperatives, federative management) as well as the property rights of AnCapitalism (though their application is less deontological). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was probably the founder of mutualism and Kevin Carson is the most popular current proponent of what he calls neo-mutualism.

Those are the main aspects of anarchism that I can remember without real research. I hope it's at least somewhat helpful for you if you're trying to understand anarchism.
: 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.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:26:58 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:18:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better?

Conversely, if people are doing immoral and violent things to each other on the ship, why should we want it to stay that way? Anarchists tend to view the state as an inherently unjustified institution.

If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

Here is the root of the problem. You have this idea of anarchy that in a society with no official overlords to steal from us and provide inefficient services and kill people in other countries, society would just stop functioning. Societies don't really work like that. People would adapt to the change to the best of their ability and life in society would go on. We'd survive. You might say that you dislike the way an anarchist society would function in practice, but that doesn't mean it would "fail" and everyone would just be running around screaming in utter chaos all day long. Things would still need to get done in society, and anarchists don't say those things shouldn't get done, they just say that there is a better alternative to having those things provided by an oppressive government which stole the money funding it and decreases quality by forbidding competition.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:52:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:38:07 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
If anarchy ever happened people would just form a government again

This. It's human nature. There is incentive for people to form their own communal government for stability and more cooperation, and those governments will inevitably grow.

>>Anarchism does not preclude stability or cooperation.
>>No uniform and universally applicable form of human nature has ever been shown.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:54:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:30:05 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:25:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:09:56 PM, imabench wrote:
Anarchy only works when you have a small group of people (who all trust each other) who are very very isolated from the rest of society and live in a place that hasnt already been heavily modernized by human occupation.

Conjecture?

(i dont know what that means)

You're simply making an unsupported generalization without any evidence or logical reasoning.
: 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.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:58:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand why the discussion is always about "what works". Why aren't we discussing what is more moral? Anarchism is the most moral political system from a deontological standpoint.

If the ship that carries the people sinks, then why should we hold that ship to be better? If anarchy fails, how is it more moral?

1. It doesn't fail.

Proof? Or can we just make blanket assertions without proof now?

Sarbat Khalsa,

Can i have a source for this? Because all I am getting from my google search is a declaritive assembly of the Khalsa at Amirata in the 18th century. It is a political institution.

Anarchy is not devoid of political institutions. Anarchy is the absence of a state. Government exists in Anarchy vis a vis the people.

"Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Are you trying to tell me a political institution does not suggest hierarchial organization?

Anarchist Catalonia,

"Everybody created his own justice and administered it himself...Some used to call this 'taking a person for a ride' [paseo] but I maintain that it was justice administered directly by the people in the complete absence of the regular judicial bodies."
—Juan García Oliver, Anarchist minister of justice, 1936"

"We do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses, a natural phenomenon of the transfer of power from the hands of privileged to the hands of the people. It is possible that our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction."
—Diego Abad de Santillan, editor of Solidaridad Obrera"

I also believe that much of Catolina was taken over by trade unions, not exactly anarchy as it was controlled...by trade unions.

Somalia are all good examples.

Somalia is considered a Federal Republic.

Somalia is labeled a Federal Republic by the UN, but it has no functional government.
Your examples were havens of lawlessness.

What is law? I'd prefer lawlessness to oppressive and coercive law any day.

I revised my statement. According to your own justification, these acts are immoral.

Laws uphold morality.


2. Actions are not moral because of consequences. They are moral or immoral in themselves.

Once again, proof? Even if I accept your statement, what makes anarchy more moral than government?

All right. If a woman derives pleasure from being raped, is it moral for you to rape her? No. Rape is an action that is wrong in itself regardless of the consequences.

So S&M and BDSM are automatically wrong within themselves?
No, because those are entirely consensual.

Not always. (Seriously, I'd know. I have friends who are...into that kind of stuff.) It can go farther than what one consented to.

Also, prove rape is an action that is wrong within itself. And no, I am not saying rape is okay.

Rape is an action that is wrong in itself because it violates an individual's ability to choose to consent. It strips her of her autonomy.

Where does the right to choose to consent derive from? Why does that ability or right exist? What gives you the ability or right to choose? Why do you or not somebody else, have the right to decide what you do?


Anarchy is more moral because no involuntarily coercion is inherently involved in Anarchy. State action involves involuntarily coercion.

Proof? If you exist within society, you implicitly are saying you will follow societies rules. You agree by existing within the bounds of society.

LOL, why am I implicitly saying it?

So are you trying to tell me that you do not have to follow any rules the government sets in place? You take advantage of police systems, hospitals, roads, etc. If someone breaks into your place, you most likely will dial 9-1-1, will you not? If you want to utilize public services, you are saying you will follow society.

My property belongs to me, not the state. The state has no right to say "Live in our society or leave your property!" The bounds of society are not supposed to take over things that belong to me.

No, if you say you do not want to exist in society, the state is saying no such thing, you are making a choice to not exist in society. The state is saying nothing, you are making the decision to leave.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:52:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:38:07 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:27:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
If anarchy ever happened people would just form a government again

This. It's human nature. There is incentive for people to form their own communal government for stability and more cooperation, and those governments will inevitably grow.

>>Anarchism does not preclude stability or cooperation.

Cooperation yes, but I don't see how there can be any kind of stability in the world overall. Individual towns or communities could be stable because everyone knows each other and therefore has an incentive to not cause trouble for everyone. But beyond that, there would obviously be conflict. Maybe disorganized conflict rather than organized conflict (which is more efficient at killing), but there would be more general conflict none the less.

>>No uniform and universally applicable form of human nature has ever been shown.

If one wants to talk about human nature, the best place to look is at the past. What have humans done and how have they reacted to certain situations before? And judging by humanity's past, we generally form authoritative societies regardless of our intent. I'm not saying that having governments is better, I'm saying that governments will eventually rise again no matter what.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK