Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Miniarchism versus anarchism.

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 12:39:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Minarchism because it is more practically attainable. I would not, for any cost, choose anarchy over any other system if it meant dissolution of my country. The people, regardless of how much freedom they might desire, have a shared cultural and ethnic heritage, which is more valuable than any political system. Minarchism can, moreover, be as morally acceptable as anarchy in a practical sense, for anarchy presupposes certain moral standards are objectively truer and more valuable than others.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 8:31:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anarchy simply isn't feasible. Even if you eliminated all governments it would not take long for some sort of government structure to reemerge. You can't keep government completely out of society in one form or another. It just isn't possible.

Since one of the two proposed are impossible then you would logically have to take the possible option.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:40:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:39:09 AM, Mirza wrote:
Minarchism because it is more practically attainable. I would not, for any cost, choose anarchy over any other system if it meant dissolution of my country. The people, regardless of how much freedom they might desire, have a shared cultural and ethnic heritage, which is more valuable than any political system. Minarchism can, moreover, be as morally acceptable as anarchy in a practical sense, for anarchy presupposes certain moral standards are objectively truer and more valuable than others.

I agree. Minarchism makes more sense because there is just enough regulation to prevent chaos, but not so much that freedom would be impossible.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2014 11:41:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:31:49 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Anarchy simply isn't feasible. Even if you eliminated all governments it would not take long for some sort of government structure to reemerge. You can't keep government completely out of society in one form or another. It just isn't possible.

Since one of the two proposed are impossible then you would logically have to take the possible option.

Agreed. I think minarchism is more practical.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 11:02:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 12:39:09 AM, Mirza wrote:
Minarchism can, moreover, be as morally acceptable as anarchy in a practical sense, for anarchy presupposes certain moral standards are objectively truer and more valuable than others.

I think you'll find that the only moral standard anarchism supposes is objectively 'truer' is the truism that positive claims require justification, understanding authority, hierarchy, domination etc. to be 'positive claims'. The minarchist must defend the positive principles upon which the minarchistic authority is based, while the anarchist does not need to suppose any real moral principles at all - he merely asks for others to justify theirs.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 11:06:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/7/2014 8:31:49 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Anarchy simply isn't feasible. Even if you eliminated all governments it would not take long for some sort of government structure to reemerge. You can't keep government completely out of society in one form or another. It just isn't possible.

Since one of the two proposed are impossible then you would logically have to take the possible option.

The 'inevitability of governments' is not an analytic principle I have heard of, so where is the evidence? What kind of government must necessarily emerge, and through what necessary channel? We do not foresee the remergence of chattel slavery, absolute monarchy, or dicatorships, so why foresee the reemergence of the modern state once it is abandoned? You can't take the status quo and stamp 'expression of human nature' on it without some extraordinary evidence, considering that 'human nature' has revaluated countless times over the history of humanity.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 1:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 11:06:36 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:31:49 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Anarchy simply isn't feasible. Even if you eliminated all governments it would not take long for some sort of government structure to reemerge. You can't keep government completely out of society in one form or another. It just isn't possible.

Since one of the two proposed are impossible then you would logically have to take the possible option.

The 'inevitability of governments' is not an analytic principle I have heard of, so where is the evidence? What kind of government must necessarily emerge, and through what necessary channel? We do not foresee the remergence of chattel slavery, absolute monarchy, or dicatorships, so why foresee the reemergence of the modern state once it is abandoned? You can't take the status quo and stamp 'expression of human nature' on it without some extraordinary evidence, considering that 'human nature' has revaluated countless times over the history of humanity.

Government is an extremely basic function. Once someone emerges in a society as a leader with a handful of advisors you have government in its most basic form. It's only so long until this behavior spreads or evolves. This cannot be prevented.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 1:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 1:07:11 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 10/8/2014 11:06:36 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/7/2014 8:31:49 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Anarchy simply isn't feasible. Even if you eliminated all governments it would not take long for some sort of government structure to reemerge. You can't keep government completely out of society in one form or another. It just isn't possible.

Since one of the two proposed are impossible then you would logically have to take the possible option.

The 'inevitability of governments' is not an analytic principle I have heard of, so where is the evidence? What kind of government must necessarily emerge, and through what necessary channel? We do not foresee the remergence of chattel slavery, absolute monarchy, or dicatorships, so why foresee the reemergence of the modern state once it is abandoned? You can't take the status quo and stamp 'expression of human nature' on it without some extraordinary evidence, considering that 'human nature' has revaluated countless times over the history of humanity.

Government is an extremely basic function. Once someone emerges in a society as a leader with a handful of advisors you have government in its most basic form. It's only so long until this behavior spreads or evolves. This cannot be prevented.

Organisation =/= Government
Leadership =/= Authority

It's simply equivocation to say that people cannot be organised without the creation of authority.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 11:02:30 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think you'll find that the only moral standard anarchism supposes is objectively 'truer' is the truism that positive claims require justification, understanding authority, hierarchy, domination etc. to be 'positive claims'. The minarchist must defend the positive principles upon which the minarchistic authority is based, while the anarchist does not need to suppose any real moral principles at all - he merely asks for others to justify theirs.
No, he must not. For if you are unable to prove that the principles on which a state is built are objectively, morally wrong, you are thereby unable to build a proper case for anarchism. It is an equal burden for an anarchist to show why a certain inviolable authority over a given area is wrong as opposed to there being no such authority. [Lack of state government.] In addition, one has the responsibility, when arguing for anarchy, to explain why the people who, as a collective national unit, do not have rights over their land that they can control through a state government. Assuming one wishes to abolish say, Ukraine, because it happens to violate principles that anarchism seeks to uphold, one must explain why the Ukrainians do not have a right to impose a state over the land they have rightfully inherited and taken ownership of.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:27:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.

Me too :)
Tsar of DDO
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:28:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
I have some liberal beliefs but I am not a liberal. :)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:28:54 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
I have some liberal beliefs but I am not a liberal. :)

When I say "liberal democratic," I am not referring to left-wing ideology. I am referring to a type of democracy.

A liberal democracy is any democracy with low corruption rates, a stable and fair election process, a transparent governing system, an educated electorate, and a functional constitution. These criteria have nothing to do with left-vs.-right ideology.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:32:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:27:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.

Me too :)

Lol...I know :)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:31:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:28:54 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
I have some liberal beliefs but I am not a liberal. :)

When I say "liberal democratic," I am not referring to left-wing ideology. I am referring to a type of democracy.

A liberal democracy is any democracy with low corruption rates, a stable and fair election process, a transparent governing system, an educated electorate, and a functional constitution. These criteria have nothing to do with left-vs.-right ideology.

Liberal is left wing though.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:40:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:33:28 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:31:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:28:54 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
I have some liberal beliefs but I am not a liberal. :)

When I say "liberal democratic," I am not referring to left-wing ideology. I am referring to a type of democracy.

A liberal democracy is any democracy with low corruption rates, a stable and fair election process, a transparent governing system, an educated electorate, and a functional constitution. These criteria have nothing to do with left-vs.-right ideology.

Liberal is left wing though.

Actually, the word "liberal" can be used to refer to several different things.

"Liberal" can refer to any rights-based, individualistic political system. Nozick was a liberal in that sense, though he was also a founder of the libertarian movement, which was not left-wing at all. Locke was another such liberal.

"Liberal" can also refer to, in the same vein as the first case, refer to any governmental system that enforces and respects the rights of its citizens. These are liberal in the sense that they are non-authoritarian, but they are not necessarily left-wing.

"Liberal" can also mean left-wing. This is actually a fairly modern use of the term.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:42:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:40:07 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:33:28 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:31:37 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:28:54 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:26:23 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:25:20 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:23:11 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

I prefer more government than miniarchists want, and anarchism is simply not a viable political system.

What type of government do you support?

I support a large, liberal democratic, welfare state.
I have some liberal beliefs but I am not a liberal. :)

When I say "liberal democratic," I am not referring to left-wing ideology. I am referring to a type of democracy.

A liberal democracy is any democracy with low corruption rates, a stable and fair election process, a transparent governing system, an educated electorate, and a functional constitution. These criteria have nothing to do with left-vs.-right ideology.

Liberal is left wing though.

Actually, the word "liberal" can be used to refer to several different things.

"Liberal" can refer to any rights-based, individualistic political system. Nozick was a liberal in that sense, though he was also a founder of the libertarian movement, which was not left-wing at all. Locke was another such liberal.

"Liberal" can also refer to, in the same vein as the first case, refer to any governmental system that enforces and respects the rights of its citizens. These are liberal in the sense that they are non-authoritarian, but they are not necessarily left-wing.

"Liberal" can also mean left-wing. This is actually a fairly modern use of the term.
Political liberals are left wing. I know because I used to be one.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:45:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:42:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

Political liberals are left wing. I know because I used to be one.

That's true. My point was that the term "liberal" itself does not always equate to being left-wing; it can refer to other philosophical or structural schools of thought.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:45:49 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/8/2014 2:42:58 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:

Political liberals are left wing. I know because I used to be one.

That's true. My point was that the term "liberal" itself does not always equate to being left-wing; it can refer to other philosophical or structural schools of thought.

Fair enough. I agree.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 3:44:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:13:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/8/2014 11:02:30 AM, Wocambs wrote:
I think you'll find that the only moral standard anarchism supposes is objectively 'truer' is the truism that positive claims require justification, understanding authority, hierarchy, domination etc. to be 'positive claims'. The minarchist must defend the positive principles upon which the minarchistic authority is based, while the anarchist does not need to suppose any real moral principles at all - he merely asks for others to justify theirs.
No, he must not. For if you are unable to prove that the principles on which a state is built are objectively, morally wrong, you are thereby unable to build a proper case for anarchism. It is an equal burden for an anarchist to show why a certain inviolable authority over a given area is wrong as opposed to there being no such authority. [Lack of state government.] In addition, one has the responsibility, when arguing for anarchy, to explain why the people who, as a collective national unit, do not have rights over their land that they can control through a state government. Assuming one wishes to abolish say, Ukraine, because it happens to violate principles that anarchism seeks to uphold, one must explain why the Ukrainians do not have a right to impose a state over the land they have rightfully inherited and taken ownership of.

Explanation of why they do not have the right to impose a state: they have not demonstrated that they have the right to impose a state.

If they cannot prove they have the right to impose a state, then they live without one. Turning off the TV is not changing the channel.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:40:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 3:44:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
Explanation of why they do not have the right to impose a state: they have not demonstrated that they have the right to impose a state.

If they cannot prove they have the right to impose a state, then they live without one. Turning off the TV is not changing the channel.
Most have demonstrated that they possess ownership over the lands which they acquired at certain periods in history. Making an argument specifically allowing the creation of a state is unnecessary, since a body of people owning land have the right to impose internal rules and standards of their choice. In modern times there are modifications to the rule; it does nevertheless not affect the very fact of them having unique right to their lands.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 2:00:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

Anarchism is so much more than that. Antagonism towards the state is a prominent characteristic of anarchism, but isn't what defines it.

Anarchism is the practice of placing a burden of proof upon all examples of authority within society. Forms of authority that are found to be legitimate (such as having authority on some subject or whatever. Or, authority that is maintained within an association that is mutual, temporary, voluntary, and are able to be cancelled) will be maintained so long as they stay legitimate. Once they are no longer legitimate they of course become forms of illegitimate (Meaning they only exist to serve those who have authority, and not all parties of an association, or cannot be escaped) will be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical free associations.

I really hate it when people say that anarchism just means no government, because it really doesn't give it's philosophy any justice.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 2:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 2:00:13 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

Anarchism is so much more than that. Antagonism towards the state is a prominent characteristic of anarchism, but isn't what defines it.

Anarchism is the practice of placing a burden of proof upon all examples of authority within society. Forms of authority that are found to be legitimate (such as having authority on some subject or whatever. Or, authority that is maintained within an association that is mutual, temporary, voluntary, and are able to be cancelled) will be maintained so long as they stay legitimate. Once they are no longer legitimate they of course become forms of illegitimate (Meaning they only exist to serve those who have authority, and not all parties of an association, or cannot be escaped) will be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical free associations.

I really hate it when people say that anarchism just means no government, because it really doesn't give it's philosophy any justice.
I used to be a an anarchist, so I know what I am talking about. Anarchists are opposed to all forms of government. The a suffix means without in the original language, therefore anarchism means without government.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 5:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 2:59:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/12/2014 2:00:13 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

Anarchism is so much more than that. Antagonism towards the state is a prominent characteristic of anarchism, but isn't what defines it.

Anarchism is the practice of placing a burden of proof upon all examples of authority within society. Forms of authority that are found to be legitimate (such as having authority on some subject or whatever. Or, authority that is maintained within an association that is mutual, temporary, voluntary, and are able to be cancelled) will be maintained so long as they stay legitimate. Once they are no longer legitimate they of course become forms of illegitimate (Meaning they only exist to serve those who have authority, and not all parties of an association, or cannot be escaped) will be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical free associations.

I really hate it when people say that anarchism just means no government, because it really doesn't give it's philosophy any justice.
I used to be a an anarchist, so I know what I am talking about. Anarchists are opposed to all forms of government. The a suffix means without in the original language, therefore anarchism means without government.

Well, I don't know what type of 'anarchist' you were, because philosophically speaking anarchism is opposed to much more than just governments (as I made in my earlier point).

And if you're going to utilize etymology, then you're committing a fallacy (the etymological fallacy, specifically). Anarchism means what anarchists say it means, and what I described is the most basic explanation of the term from anarchists.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 5:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 5:02:57 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/12/2014 2:59:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/12/2014 2:00:13 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

Anarchism is so much more than that. Antagonism towards the state is a prominent characteristic of anarchism, but isn't what defines it.

Anarchism is the practice of placing a burden of proof upon all examples of authority within society. Forms of authority that are found to be legitimate (such as having authority on some subject or whatever. Or, authority that is maintained within an association that is mutual, temporary, voluntary, and are able to be cancelled) will be maintained so long as they stay legitimate. Once they are no longer legitimate they of course become forms of illegitimate (Meaning they only exist to serve those who have authority, and not all parties of an association, or cannot be escaped) will be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical free associations.

I really hate it when people say that anarchism just means no government, because it really doesn't give it's philosophy any justice.
I used to be a an anarchist, so I know what I am talking about. Anarchists are opposed to all forms of government. The a suffix means without in the original language, therefore anarchism means without government.

Well, I don't know what type of 'anarchist' you were, because philosophically speaking anarchism is opposed to much more than just governments (as I made in my earlier point).

And if you're going to utilize etymology, then you're committing a fallacy (the etymological fallacy, specifically). Anarchism means what anarchists say it means, and what I described is the most basic explanation of the term from anarchists.

I have not committed a fallacy. Anarchists are opposed to any form of government, and I know this because I used to be an anarchist. Using etymology is not a a fallacy. By saying that it is, you are committing the fallacy fallacy.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 5:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 5:15:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/12/2014 5:02:57 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/12/2014 2:59:00 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 10/12/2014 2:00:13 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:47:55 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
I am a minarchist. Minarchism means minimal government. Anarchism means no government. Which system do you prefer?

Anarchism is so much more than that. Antagonism towards the state is a prominent characteristic of anarchism, but isn't what defines it.

Anarchism is the practice of placing a burden of proof upon all examples of authority within society. Forms of authority that are found to be legitimate (such as having authority on some subject or whatever. Or, authority that is maintained within an association that is mutual, temporary, voluntary, and are able to be cancelled) will be maintained so long as they stay legitimate. Once they are no longer legitimate they of course become forms of illegitimate (Meaning they only exist to serve those who have authority, and not all parties of an association, or cannot be escaped) will be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical free associations.

I really hate it when people say that anarchism just means no government, because it really doesn't give it's philosophy any justice.
I used to be a an anarchist, so I know what I am talking about. Anarchists are opposed to all forms of government. The a suffix means without in the original language, therefore anarchism means without government.

Well, I don't know what type of 'anarchist' you were, because philosophically speaking anarchism is opposed to much more than just governments (as I made in my earlier point).

And if you're going to utilize etymology, then you're committing a fallacy (the etymological fallacy, specifically). Anarchism means what anarchists say it means, and what I described is the most basic explanation of the term from anarchists.

Anarchists are opposed to any form of government

Yes, but that is an oversimplification of anarchism as a whole. Just because anarchism advocates for the abolition of the state, doesn't mean that abolishing the state is the sole goal of anarchism.

, and I know this because I used to be an anarchist.

If you were/used an actual anarchist, you would understand what i'm saying.

Using etymology is not a a fallacy.

Wikipedia states otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

All i'm saying is that simply because the etymology of a word means something, doesn't mean that is what the word itself as a whole means such. You stated that anarchism has the sole purpose of abolishing the state due to it's etymology (that being, that it comes from the Greek word anarkhia, which roughly means 'without rulers'). The reason why this is false is because the term 'ruler' in Greek is also the same word as 'authority'. And, philosophically speaking, anarchism today, and through out history has always been, against more than just the state. Anarchism is simply a radical critique of authority. And anarchism seems to agree with me:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com...

All I am stating is that anarchism is more than you think it is.

By saying that it is, you are committing the fallacy fallacy.

Not really.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 5:31:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"If you were/used an actual anarchist, you would understand what i'm saying." No true Scotsman fallacy. I was a "true" anarchist. I rejected all forms of government.