Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Any Anarchists?

Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site? If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:08:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:04:15 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Anarchy

Like what? A belief in less government, or a belief in no central government at all, but rather people living peaceably in settlements or villages under an agreed set of rules?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:11:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:08:58 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:04:15 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Anarchy

Like what? A belief in less government, or a belief in no central government at all, but rather people living peaceably in settlements or villages under an agreed set of rules?

I'm actually not an anarchist myself. I don't even fully understand the concept of anarchy since absolute freedom can't even exist since no matter what someone or something will coerce every decision you make.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:18:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:11:28 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:08:58 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:04:15 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Anarchy

Like what? A belief in less government, or a belief in no central government at all, but rather people living peaceably in settlements or villages under an agreed set of rules?

I'm actually not an anarchist myself. I don't even fully understand the concept of anarchy since absolute freedom can't even exist since no matter what someone or something will coerce every decision you make.

So why did you post?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 5:18:52 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:11:28 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:08:58 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 5:04:15 PM, Intrepid wrote:
Anarchy

Like what? A belief in less government, or a belief in no central government at all, but rather people living peaceably in settlements or villages under an agreed set of rules?

I'm actually not an anarchist myself. I don't even fully understand the concept of anarchy since absolute freedom can't even exist since no matter what someone or something will coerce every decision you make.

So why did you post?

I thought the answer to the second question seemed obvious/
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.

Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.

Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.

Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.

Okay, perhaps it can be a bit more complicated than that.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:17:51 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.

Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.

Okay, perhaps it can be a bit more complicated than that.

I did that in my original explanation.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:19:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:17:51 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:11:01 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site?

I'm an anarchist of sorts.

If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

This is actually a difficult question to answer given that it requires that I navigate a theoretical space which I generally try to stay away from. But I'll try to explain myself in a few points if possible. But first, why the wording of yer question (or perhaps the thought behind the question itself) is problematic.

1) "System" itself is a somewhat insidious way of signifying a way in which groups are collectively politicized. It abstracts the political process to something of an automaton or machine which, set to the correct conditions, will work itself through whatever problem is presented to it. While in a sense I must admit that certain "systems" (or rather foundational Events) can set the stage for somewhat predictable repercussions later on, this sort of weak politico-teleological pov ignores the role of the unforeseen and spontaneous which, as I see it, are largely underestimated in Western pol-phil.

2) It also ignores (again, the best word I can think of is 'abstracts') the use of force (a term which I realize seems ambiguous but which I might expand upon if requested) in the establishment of a political or economic regime. This is where I see a good stepping in point for anarchist (even Marxist) theory in bringing to light the symptomal torsions of contemporary society. But this point has been long developed so I don't see much use in staying on it for too long.

3) You have also failed to give a coherent idea of how you see our current politico-economic situation (signified by "the current one"). This might seem unimportant since it is you who are asking me to describe a possible politics but, I argue, that one's conception of the contemporary (how one might generalize or identify trends) is one of many determining factors for one's support of this or that replacement or defense of such. For instance a conservative's conceptualization of accessibility to abortion differs (even if only in a superficially reversible manner) from that of the liberal's. While the conservative reads abortion in a narrative of harmful moral decay, the liberal sees it as a sign that society is becoming more progressive, enlightened, etc. So to know what one would support in opposition to contemporary society, one would, it seems, first need to start a discussion on what one sees as the dominating trends in it.

Now on to my, probably all-too tentative, attempt to answer yer question.

As is implied by my first point, it is not a system which I defend or prop up in opposition to the contemporary. However, since one's support for a possible future is shaped by continuous reference to the present (and whatever theoretical space the current regime allows for), I'd start by presenting a series of problematics which I see the contemporary political unit as being incapable of seriously dealing with. That is, environmental degradation, the expansion of capitalism into hitherto unheard of cultural spaces, the effects of the internalization of theoretical, ethical, and political space on the subject, of course the actual material effects of capitalism garnered by the working poor, the exclusion of marginalized groups by neoliberal spaces, etc. These are issues which appear to have some sort of structural starting point and, consequently, cannot be gotten around by tweaking or by reforming of the current system. Anarchism, as it seems to me, is a theoretical space from which discussion of these issues can be had and which, by its very disruptive nature, might clear away a space upon which new experiences may be generated.

Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.

Okay, perhaps it can be a bit more complicated than that.

I did that in my original explanation.

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge. Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace, and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site? If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

I advocate in general the dismantling of authority that cannot be justified, that is my principle. The conclusions I have drawn from this is that the state and private property ought to be abolished, and the defeat of any claim that one set of values is superior to any other. Therefore, societies would need to reorganise horizontally as a group cooperating individuals who are free and equal.

This does not mean mud huts or isolated villages. That's simply a rhetorical argument designed to appeal to people's fear. Can anyone not blinded by dogma seriously believe that humans are so evil that we all need to be beaten into submission to enjoy our lives? It's quite a religious belief, really.

... Anyway, I don't particularly advocate a 'system', just the abolition of them all, really. Saying 'You can't build an authoritative system!' isn't really building an authoritative system, unless you're one of those people who believe that not believing in God is a religion and that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:36:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Not really.

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.

I thought you were a communist. And no, I did not mean that in a derogatory manner.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:38:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:34:22 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:08:29 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Are there any legitimate anarchists on this Site? If so, what form of system would you prefer over the current one?

I advocate in general the dismantling of authority that cannot be justified, that is my principle. The conclusions I have drawn from this is that the state and private property ought to be abolished, and the defeat of any claim that one set of values is superior to any other.
The abolition of both private property and the state is impossible; smart (or manipulative) people will always find ways to make themselves wealthy. If you seek to do away with wealth you must have an all-powerful State.

Therefore, societies would need to reorganise horizontally as a group cooperating individuals who are free and equal.

This does not mean mud huts or isolated villages. That's simply a rhetorical argument designed to appeal to people's fear. Can anyone not blinded by dogma seriously believe that humans are so evil that we all need to be beaten into submission to enjoy our lives? It's quite a religious belief, really.

... Anyway, I don't particularly advocate a 'system', just the abolition of them all, really. Saying 'You can't build an authoritative system!' isn't really building an authoritative system, unless you're one of those people who believe that not believing in God is a religion and that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:36:09 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Not really.

What, then, informs yer conception of what constitutes "true anarchism"?

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.

I thought you were a communist. And no, I did not mean that in a derogatory manner.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:42:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:39:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:36:09 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Not really.

What, then, informs yer conception of what constitutes "true anarchism"?

It seems to me that it's not anarchism if a certain entity is in charge. But I'm not a real anarchist, so please forgive any misconceptions I have on anarchist thought.

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.

I thought you were a communist. And no, I did not mean that in a derogatory manner.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I think they are. Smart, hardworking, and/or exploitive people will find ways to elevate themselves to a position of wealth or prosperity above other people. You'd constantly need a government (and a powerful one at that) to make sure this doesn't happen.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:44:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:42:50 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:39:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:36:09 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Not really.

What, then, informs yer conception of what constitutes "true anarchism"?

It seems to me that it's not anarchism if a certain entity is in charge. But I'm not a real anarchist, so please forgive any misconceptions I have on anarchist thought.

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

I can recommend actual anarchist lit if yer interested in informing yerself.

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.

I thought you were a communist. And no, I did not mean that in a derogatory manner.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I think they are. Smart, hardworking, and/or exploitive people will find ways to elevate themselves to a position of wealth or prosperity above other people. You'd constantly need a government (and a powerful one at that) to make sure this doesn't happen.

Again, if yer interested in informing yerself on the subject I can recommend some lit.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 6:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:44:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:42:50 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:39:29 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:36:09 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:34:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:32:35 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:29:04 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:24:47 PM, Crescendo wrote:

In my opinion, true anarchism is impossible with today's technology and scientific knowledge.

What is true anarchism?

A system where everyone lives on in settlements or villages, most likely in primitive conditions, each village ruling itself.

Are you at all familiar with the anarchist tradition?

Not really.

What, then, informs yer conception of what constitutes "true anarchism"?

It seems to me that it's not anarchism if a certain entity is in charge. But I'm not a real anarchist, so please forgive any misconceptions I have on anarchist thought.

Today's weaponry means a small group of people can force their will on a much larger populace,

I can recommend actual anarchist lit if yer interested in informing yerself.
Sure.

Anarchists might want to have a word with you on the difference between a hypothetical scenario and what has already occurred.

Yes, it has already happened; and if even one small group holds on to their technology this becomes impossible to put into effect.

*misses point*

and the only way to prevent this is to eliminate all modern technology, everything that could teach someone how to build modern technology, and to kill everyone who has knowledge of how modern technology works.
I have a very unorthodox view on the world, but if I explained my views, 99.9999% of people would probably think that I'm bonkers (that or some kind of extreme radical).

Not radical, just bonkers I'm guessing.

Here's the simplified version: the world MUST NOT EVER unite under one Government. It'd require me to write a speech to explain it all in detail.

Well I'm an anarchist so I guess I'm sort of with you on that.

I thought you were a communist. And no, I did not mean that in a derogatory manner.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I think they are. Smart, hardworking, and/or exploitive people will find ways to elevate themselves to a position of wealth or prosperity above other people. You'd constantly need a government (and a powerful one at that) to make sure this doesn't happen.

Again, if yer interested in informing yerself on the subject I can recommend some lit.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 7:48:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:38:10 PM, Crescendo wrote:

"The abolition of both private property and the state is impossible; smart (or manipulative) people will always find ways to make themselves wealthy. If you seek to do away with wealth you must have an all-powerful State"

You must be misunderstanding me, since you seem to think that I advocate some kind of enforced 'equality of private wealth', or something like that. Nope, as I said, I think that private property ought to be abolished. I think I should point out that anarchists have always opposed private property.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:03:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:


Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.

You're my favorite.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 9:04:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 9:03:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:16:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/13/2014 6:15:07 PM, Crescendo wrote:


Forgive my stupidity, but can you rephrase that in layman's terms?

Ugh. Current stuff bad. Anarchy maybe make it better.

You're my favorite.

Thanks Koop. You know yer the only one for me.....wait.....wait a gosh darn second yer not Koop! Show yer true self imposter!
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.