Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Would anarchy work if...?

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:45:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

That's a big if when we are talking about everyone acting in accord with a belief system (which means we must assume no one will be overcome with emotions or the like that would violate the tenets of Objectivism).
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:46:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.

I don't understand how it would. Even if people were all objectivists wouldn't there still be points of disagreement that would require some third or higher power to resolve?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:48:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:46:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.

I don't understand how it would. Even if people were all objectivists wouldn't there still be points of disagreement that would require some third or higher power to resolve?

No, Obectivists solve things on their own, fairly, with logic.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:49:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:48:50 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:46:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.

I don't understand how it would. Even if people were all objectivists wouldn't there still be points of disagreement that would require some third or higher power to resolve?

No, Obectivists solve things on their own, fairly, with logic.

Fairly according to their believe system correct?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2009 11:52:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:48:50 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:46:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.

I don't understand how it would. Even if people were all objectivists wouldn't there still be points of disagreement that would require some third or higher power to resolve?

No, Obectivists solve things on their own, fairly, with logic.

Logic may exist in theory as a single clear coherent system, but in practice one person's 'logic' may very well conflict with others.

Considering the many complicated demands on society, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that there will not be grey areas and outstanding arguments.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 12:04:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:52:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:48:50 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:46:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:40:38 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:34:59 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

No, we need government because people are generally stupid look up Cortez I think it is other than using the pope he is correct. Also, look up Lewin and autocracy.

But if people only behaved as Objectivists it would fix all the problems government is there to stop.

I don't understand how it would. Even if people were all objectivists wouldn't there still be points of disagreement that would require some third or higher power to resolve?

No, Obectivists solve things on their own, fairly, with logic.

Logic may exist in theory as a single clear coherent system, but in practice one person's 'logic' may very well conflict with others.

Considering the many complicated demands on society, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that there will not be grey areas and outstanding arguments.

If everyone were truly Objectivist their logic would not conflict. Let me point out that I know it would be impossible for this to happen, I'm merely speaking in theoretical.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 12:14:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 12:04:40 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
If everyone were truly Objectivist their logic would not conflict. Let me point out that I know it would be impossible for this to happen, I'm merely speaking in theoretical.

Surely objectivism and logic are simply subjective attempts to be objective, as a result they are subject to variation, variation leads to differences, differences lead to disputes, which leads to some form of violence or coercion which is Government and not anarchy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 12:17:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 12:04:40 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
If everyone were truly Objectivist their logic would not conflict. Let me point out that I know it would be impossible for this to happen, I'm merely speaking in theoretical.

A society with no laws and sheer logic? Will never work. It may be logical to kill someone in order to support your own family, but it would be unethical.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 2:31:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

When did Objectivism drop the role of Government? Call it anarchy+something else, it wouldn't be Objectivism however.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 3:22:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 12:14:42 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 12/6/2009 12:04:40 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
If everyone were truly Objectivist their logic would not conflict. Let me point out that I know it would be impossible for this to happen, I'm merely speaking in theoretical.

Surely objectivism and logic are simply subjective attempts to be objective, as a result they are subject to variation, variation leads to differences, differences lead to disputes, which leads to some form of violence or coercion which is Government and not anarchy.

Yes, l know, like I said, It's impossible, I'm only speaking in theoretical if everyone agreed on the same Objectivism ideas and practiced them accordingly.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 3:24:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You know what, never-mind, you people aren't getting it.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 3:35:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 3:22:15 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Yes, l know, like I said, It's impossible, I'm only speaking in theoretical if everyone agreed on the same Objectivism ideas and practiced them accordingly.

I know this was directed at Cerebral_Narcissist, but I think you implied that no one understood what you are saying. I already granted that you were speaking theoretically in terms of everyone being logical, however, with that granted it still wouldn't work.

I would suggest that anarchy would work if it were aided by a global enlightenment (vague, I know), but not pure logic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 7:06:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

Define "work". Objectivists believe in IP, so it would not truly be anarchy.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 8:43:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Depends. Are we talking about real Objectivists, who do occasionally differ in interpretation, sometimes in ways that would go to civil court?

Or fantasy Objectivists who are all omniscient?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:15:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 8:43:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Depends. Are we talking about real Objectivists, who do occasionally differ in interpretation, sometimes in ways that would go to civil court?

Or fantasy Objectivists who are all omniscient?

You mean Objectivists aren't omniscient?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:47:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If we were all Buddhists, would there be world peace?

Yes, I agree it is a big IF.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 10:07:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 3:24:12 AM, Freedomaniac wrote:
You know what, never-mind, you people aren't getting it.

No we get it, you have slightly altered your original premise thats all.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 7:41:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 6:37:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think that anarchy would ever work.

How do you define anarchy and "work".
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 8:28:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 7:41:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 6:37:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think that anarchy would ever work.

How do you define anarchy and "work".

Really?

Anarchy is meagerly defined as the lack of a governing body.

I don't know why "work" needs to be defined, but allow me to restate my sentence.

"I don't think an anarchic 'society' could ever operate or function effectively."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 8:53:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 8:28:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/6/2009 7:41:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 6:37:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think that anarchy would ever work.

How do you define anarchy and "work".

Really?

Anarchy is meagerly defined as the lack of a governing body.

I don't know why "work" needs to be defined, but allow me to restate my sentence.

"I don't think an anarchic 'society' could ever operate or function effectively."

Define governing body. And who determines what is effective?

I'm not trying to play a definition game, those terms are just extremely unclear. Is a condo association a governing body? Does something function effectively if there is less than 5% unemployment?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:15:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 8:53:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 8:28:58 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/6/2009 7:41:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 6:37:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think that anarchy would ever work.

How do you define anarchy and "work".

Really?

Anarchy is meagerly defined as the lack of a governing body.

I don't know why "work" needs to be defined, but allow me to restate my sentence.

"I don't think an anarchic 'society' could ever operate or function effectively."

Define governing body. And who determines what is effective?

I'm not trying to play a definition game, those terms are just extremely unclear. Is a condo association a governing body? Does something function effectively if there is less than 5% unemployment?

It seems to me like you're trying to play a semantic game, to me. You're trying to push definitions on things that are commonly understood.

A governing body. As in, a central authority. Anarchism = lack of a state. It's pretty simple. And efficacy is pretty straightforward.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:18:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:15:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

It seems to me like you're trying to play a semantic game, to me. You're trying to push definitions on things that are commonly understood.

A governing body. As in, a central authority. Anarchism = lack of a state. It's pretty simple. And efficacy is pretty straightforward.

I honestly am not trying to. I merely do not wish to strawman your position.

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion

Do you accept that definition?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:22:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:18:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 9:15:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

It seems to me like you're trying to play a semantic game, to me. You're trying to push definitions on things that are commonly understood.

A governing body. As in, a central authority. Anarchism = lack of a state. It's pretty simple. And efficacy is pretty straightforward.

I honestly am not trying to. I merely do not wish to strawman your position.

State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion

Do you accept that definition?

I actually have to agree with the talking teddy bear on this one; you ask for definitions when you it really isn't necessary.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:24:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:18:40 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 9:15:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

It seems to me like you're trying to play a semantic game, to me. You're trying to push definitions on things that are commonly understood.

A governing body. As in, a central authority. Anarchism = lack of a state. It's pretty simple. And efficacy is pretty straightforward.

I honestly am not trying to. I merely do not wish to strawman your position.

I usually don't call straw man on arguments unless it's blatant. You're just playing this one a little too cautiously. I'll tell you if something seems a little off.


State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion

Do you accept that definition?

The taxing part I accept. The aggressive coercion part, I don't. You're presupposing that every government action is somehow laced with aggression and evil intention. That definition would just poison the well by assigning an automatic negative stigma to anything governmental. It's completely biased to further the anarchist position.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2009 10:49:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/5/2009 11:33:28 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Everyone was Obectivist? Even if your not an Objectivist, don't you think the world would be a much better place if we acted as such and there was no government?

The world needs some kind of structure to function properly, although I would love to not be molded so much by a select few's ideological views.