Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anarchism and Crime

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 6:39:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In a previous thread on the question of Anarchism a question was raised that was by far the most asked. The question is this: How will Anarchy deal with crime? In order to properly address this great question, I have made this thread.

Let us begin by seeing what the Editor of Liberty has to say on the subject.

"Mr. Ball's central argument against us, stated briefly, is this: Where crime exists, force must exist to repress it. Who denies it? Certainly not Liberty; certainly not the Anarchists. Anarchism is not a revival of non-resistance, though there may be non-resistants in its ranks. The direction of Mr. Ball's attack implies that we would let robbery, rape, and murder make havoc in the community without lifting a finger to stay their brutal, bloody work. On the contrary, we are the sternest enemies of invasion of person and property, and, although chiefly busy in destroying the causes thereof, have no scruples against such heroic treatment of its immediate manifestations as circumstances and wisdom may dictate. It is true that we look forward to the ultimate disappearance of the necessity of force even for the purpose of repressing crime, but this, though involved in it as a necessary result, is by no means a necessary condition of the abolition of the State.

In opposing the State, therefore, we do not deny Mr. Ball's proposition, but distinctly affirm and emphasize it. We make war upon the State as chief invader of person and property, as the cause of substantially all the crime and misery that exist, as itself the most gigantic criminal extant. It manufactures criminals much faster than it punishes them. It exists to create and sustain the privileges which produce economic and social chaos. It is the sole support of the monopolies which concentrate wealth and learning in the hands of a few and disperse poverty and ignorance among the masses, to the increase of which inequality the increase of crime is directly proportional. It protects a minority in plundering the majority by methods too subtle to be understood by the victims, and then punishes such unruly members of the majority as attempt to plunder others by methods too simple and straightforward to be recognized by the State as legitimate, crowning its outrages by deluding scholars and philosophers of Mr. Ball's stamp into pleading, as an excuse for its infamous existence, the necessity of repressing the crime which it steadily creates." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

His answer then is this. We, the Anarchists, are the strongest proponents of rights and greatest foes of crime. Because of this, we see the State, which is nothing but a great band of thieves, as our enemy. Indeed, the Anarchist opposes crime first, then seeing that the government is criminal, opposes it as well.

1 http://flag.blackened.net...
"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
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 6:56:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One third of our prisoners are that of drug offenses, which shouldn't even be illegal in the first place. Out of the other two thirds, I would say that the vast majority of these crimes are greed-based in some fashion. In other words, the crimes (and therefore the criminals) are completely manufactured by capitalism (a greed-based system that promotes, advertises, and endorses greed and saturates our culture with it). Assuming a hypothetical society did not have class stratification, and hence the oppression, suffering, and exploitation that comes with it, there would be very little reason for greed-based crime and minimization of the conditions which breed criminals in the first place. There would always be a small amount of crime from psychopaths and the like, but one can easily see that we are more responsible for these crimes, with our support of this system, than the criminals themselves. I would finish by saying that whatever America is doing should be seen as the worst possible scenario; 1 out of every 100 citizens we have is incarcerated, which is the worst % in the world, of course something can be said about countries who kill their criminals instead of incarcerating them :)
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 7:03:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 6:58:03 PM, cjl wrote:
Anarchy would result in terrible leaders being the only survivors.

Care to give some reasoning?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 7:04:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 6:58:03 PM, cjl wrote:
Anarchy would result in terrible leaders being the only survivors.

That's contradictory.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 6:39:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In a previous thread on the question of Anarchism a question was raised that was by far the most asked. The question is this: How will Anarchy deal with crime? In order to properly address this great question, I have made this thread.

Let us begin by seeing what the Editor of Liberty has to say on the subject.

"Mr. Ball's central argument against us, stated briefly, is this: Where crime exists, force must exist to repress it. Who denies it? Certainly not Liberty; certainly not the Anarchists. Anarchism is not a revival of non-resistance, though there may be non-resistants in its ranks. The direction of Mr. Ball's attack implies that we would let robbery, rape, and murder make havoc in the community without lifting a finger to stay their brutal, bloody work. On the contrary, we are the sternest enemies of invasion of person and property, and, although chiefly busy in destroying the causes thereof, have no scruples against such heroic treatment of its immediate manifestations as circumstances and wisdom may dictate. It is true that we look forward to the ultimate disappearance of the necessity of force even for the purpose of repressing crime, but this, though involved in it as a necessary result, is by no means a necessary condition of the abolition of the State.

In opposing the State, therefore, we do not deny Mr. Ball's proposition, but distinctly affirm and emphasize it. We make war upon the State as chief invader of person and property, as the cause of substantially all the crime and misery that exist, as itself the most gigantic criminal extant. It manufactures criminals much faster than it punishes them. It exists to create and sustain the privileges which produce economic and social chaos. It is the sole support of the monopolies which concentrate wealth and learning in the hands of a few and disperse poverty and ignorance among the masses, to the increase of which inequality the increase of crime is directly proportional. It protects a minority in plundering the majority by methods too subtle to be understood by the victims, and then punishes such unruly members of the majority as attempt to plunder others by methods too simple and straightforward to be recognized by the State as legitimate, crowning its outrages by deluding scholars and philosophers of Mr. Ball's stamp into pleading, as an excuse for its infamous existence, the necessity of repressing the crime which it steadily creates." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

His answer then is this. We, the Anarchists, are the strongest proponents of rights and greatest foes of crime. Because of this, we see the State, which is nothing but a great band of thieves, as our enemy. Indeed, the Anarchist opposes crime first, then seeing that the government is criminal, opposes it as well.

1 http://flag.blackened.net...

That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals. That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.
SportsGuru
Posts: 1,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 7:47:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/26/2010 6:39:26 PM, Reasoning wrote:
In a previous thread on the question of Anarchism a question was raised that was by far the most asked. The question is this: How will Anarchy deal with crime? In order to properly address this great question, I have made this thread.

Let us begin by seeing what the Editor of Liberty has to say on the subject.

"Mr. Ball's central argument against us, stated briefly, is this: Where crime exists, force must exist to repress it. Who denies it? Certainly not Liberty; certainly not the Anarchists. Anarchism is not a revival of non-resistance, though there may be non-resistants in its ranks. The direction of Mr. Ball's attack implies that we would let robbery, rape, and murder make havoc in the community without lifting a finger to stay their brutal, bloody work. On the contrary, we are the sternest enemies of invasion of person and property, and, although chiefly busy in destroying the causes thereof, have no scruples against such heroic treatment of its immediate manifestations as circumstances and wisdom may dictate. It is true that we look forward to the ultimate disappearance of the necessity of force even for the purpose of repressing crime, but this, though involved in it as a necessary result, is by no means a necessary condition of the abolition of the State.

In opposing the State, therefore, we do not deny Mr. Ball's proposition, but distinctly affirm and emphasize it. We make war upon the State as chief invader of person and property, as the cause of substantially all the crime and misery that exist, as itself the most gigantic criminal extant. It manufactures criminals much faster than it punishes them. It exists to create and sustain the privileges which produce economic and social chaos. It is the sole support of the monopolies which concentrate wealth and learning in the hands of a few and disperse poverty and ignorance among the masses, to the increase of which inequality the increase of crime is directly proportional. It protects a minority in plundering the majority by methods too subtle to be understood by the victims, and then punishes such unruly members of the majority as attempt to plunder others by methods too simple and straightforward to be recognized by the State as legitimate, crowning its outrages by deluding scholars and philosophers of Mr. Ball's stamp into pleading, as an excuse for its infamous existence, the necessity of repressing the crime which it steadily creates." - Benjamin Tucker[1]

His answer then is this. We, the Anarchists, are the strongest proponents of rights and greatest foes of crime. Because of this, we see the State, which is nothing but a great band of thieves, as our enemy. Indeed, the Anarchist opposes crime first, then seeing that the government is criminal, opposes it as well.

1 http://flag.blackened.net...

That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals. That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.

Beat me to it cody
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 6:56:11 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
One third of our prisoners are that of drug offenses, which shouldn't even be illegal in the first place. Out of the other two thirds, I would say that the vast majority of these crimes are greed-based in some fashion. In other words, the crimes (and therefore the criminals) are completely manufactured by capitalism (a greed-based system that promotes, advertises, and endorses greed and saturates our culture with it). Assuming a hypothetical society did not have class stratification, and hence the oppression, suffering, and exploitation that comes with it, there would be very little reason for greed-based crime and minimization of the conditions which breed criminals in the first place. There would always be a small amount of crime from psychopaths and the like, but one can easily see that we are more responsible for these crimes, with our support of this system, than the criminals themselves. I would finish by saying that whatever America is doing should be seen as the worst possible scenario; 1 out of every 100 citizens we have is incarcerated, which is the worst % in the world, of course something can be said about countries who kill their criminals instead of incarcerating them :)

Hold on, you think that if we had a system without the greed-supporting capitalism, we'd have less greed-related crime? May I point you to the greed-infested communism of Soviet Russia? Greed is inescapable in human society.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals. That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.

You are correct. Nowhere does it propose a manner of dealing with crime.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 9:06:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One of the main issues I see with crime in a anarchist society is criminals who move from place to place. Without some kind of dedicated force for fighting criminals, I don't see how we could fight said criminals.
An anarchist society would still need some kind of police force, or do you have an alternative solution?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 2:21:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A pathetic cop out argument that fails to address the issue.
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
7/27/2010 3:48:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals.

Because Anarchy does not comment upon it.

That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.

But it explains that the State can't be used as an answer because it is itself criminal.
"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
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:03:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Look.
I really like the idea of Anarchy, don't get me wrong. It is ultimate freedom but you can't deny that is imperfect. The fact of matter is...
Anarchy = Lawlessness
Lawlessness, as far as most people are concerned, is BAD.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:08:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 4:03:45 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I really like the idea of Anarchy, don't get me wrong. It is ultimate freedom but you can't deny that is imperfect.

It is more perfect than any system and it is the perfect philosophy.

The fact of matter is...
Anarchy = Lawlessness
Lawlessness, as far as most people are concerned, is BAD.

Anarchy is Order.
"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: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:11:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 3:48:57 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals.

Because Anarchy does not comment upon it.

Then you shouldn't have made a thread based on that particular question.

That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.

But it explains that the State can't be used as an answer because it is itself criminal.

So, the anarchist's answer to crime is "the status quo doesn't do it"?

Let me get this straight: You promote anarchy as the ideological answer to social problems, denouncing every other ideology as supporting crime (usually the government), when Anarchy doesn't even bother to respond to the argument that there's no feasible way of dealing with criminals?

Here's what your ideology comes down to, then.

You rely on the dogmatic view that the State is evil. You say that it has always been evil, is evil now, and will always be evil, no matter its incarnation. You say that it's a huge source of crime and oppression (according to you, capitalistic oppression). You tell us to look at the status quo as evidence of the State's evil.

Because the status quo is, in fact, so evil, you suggest that we abolish government altogether. At that point, what do you have? You'll never be able to provide a sufficient answer to the objection that you can't solve crime (and that such attempts will only degenerate into more violence); so, let me tell you exactly what you have. In the absence of a legitimate answer to this objection, all you have is the hope that, in the absence of the oh-so-criminal government, things will simply work themselves out - that people will find a way to make things work in the absence of a monopoly on force. That's it. Dogma. Hope. Wishful thinking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 4:58:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 4:11:20 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/27/2010 3:48:57 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/26/2010 7:44:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
That doesn't answer the question of how anarchy deals with criminals.

Because Anarchy does not comment upon it.

Then you shouldn't have made a thread based on that particular question.

Sure, I should have. For it points out a great contradiction.

That "response" you posted degenerates into nothing more than an anti-government rant without explicitly stating how it is going to deal with criminals that aren't the state.

Anarchy, not being authoritarian, prescribes no single method of crime prevention. It says simply, "we do not look to Satan to cast out Satan".

But it explains that the State can't be used as an answer because it is itself criminal.

So, the anarchist's answer to crime is "the status quo doesn't do it"?

The first thing the Anarchist sees is that we live in a most unlibertarian world.

Let me get this straight: You promote anarchy as the ideological answer to social problems, denouncing every other ideology as supporting crime (usually the government), when Anarchy doesn't even bother to respond to the argument that there's no feasible way of dealing with criminals?

What is unfeasible about crime prevention in Anarchy? Nothing.

Here's what your ideology comes down to, then.

You rely on the dogmatic view that the State is evil. You say that it has always been evil, is evil now, and will always be evil, no matter its incarnation. You say that it's a huge source of crime and oppression (according to you, capitalistic oppression). You tell us to look at the status quo as evidence of the State's evil.

This is correct.

Because the status quo is, in fact, so evil, you suggest that we abolish government altogether.

Yes.

At that point, what do you have? You'll never be able to provide a sufficient answer to the objection that you can't solve crime (and that such attempts will only degenerate into more violence);

Indeed, I can and I have.

so, let me tell you exactly what you have. In the absence of a legitimate answer to this objection, all you have is the hope that, in the absence of the oh-so-criminal government, things will simply work themselves out - that people will find a way to make things work in the absence of a monopoly on force. That's it. Dogma. Hope. Wishful thinking.

How will the mail be delivered in an Objectivist State? What will the price of postage be? What size will the letters be? By what means of transportation will the mail be delivered?

On all of these questions Objectivism is silent.
"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
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 5:49:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
His answer then is this. We, the Anarchists, are the strongest proponents of rights and greatest foes of crime. Because of this, we see the State, which is nothing but a great band of thieves, as our enemy. Indeed, the Anarchist opposes crime first, then seeing that the government is criminal, opposes it as well.:

So basically the anarchists are a vigilante mob who roam the street protecting people from crime, while simultaneously committing it.

Problem: You're now in a city of 6 million people. Who are the anarchists? Everyone! And they (surprise, surprise) don't all agree.

Don't delude yourself that anarchism could ever be implemented without catastrophic consequences. Anarchism leaves a vacuum and power struggle where something rushes in to fill the space.

Who fills the space first is the most ambitious group who uses violence the most effectively.

Test case: Somalia

Not your romanticized version of anarchy, but actual anarchy. Somalia's central government crumbled. Without a military or police force keeping peace, tribes formed. Like it is with everything else in human history, disagreements take place.

The only applicable law for the rival factions (in the absence of civilized law) is the law of kill or be killed. Be stronger than your opponents or they will kill you.

That's anarchy, not the notion that if laws are abolished and governments dissolve that we skip off in a meadow full of daisies, hand in hand. Don't be absurd.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 5:59:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 5:49:22 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
His answer then is this. We, the Anarchists, are the strongest proponents of rights and greatest foes of crime. Because of this, we see the State, which is nothing but a great band of thieves, as our enemy. Indeed, the Anarchist opposes crime first, then seeing that the government is criminal, opposes it as well.:

So basically the anarchists are a vigilante mob who roam the street protecting people from crime, while simultaneously committing it.

Anarchists have a strong sense of justice and are therefore more likely to take Law into their own hands, yes.

Problem: You're now in a city of 6 million people. Who are the anarchists? Everyone! And they (surprise, surprise) don't all agree.

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" -Henry David Thoreau

Don't delude yourself that anarchism could ever be implemented without catastrophic consequences. Anarchism leaves a vacuum and power struggle where something rushes in to fill the space.

There have been plenty of societies throughout history that have been, or have been relatively close to, Anarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Test case: Somalia

Which is doing much better than it was under government.

Not your romanticized version of anarchy, but actual anarchy. Somalia's central government crumbled. Without a military or police force keeping peace, tribes formed. Like it is with everything else in human history, disagreements take place.

There were always tribes. The tribes have become very important in keeping the peace.

The only applicable law for the rival factions (in the absence of civilized law) is the law of kill or be killed. Be stronger than your opponents or they will kill you.

Xeer Law? Sharia Law?

That's anarchy, not the notion that if laws are abolished and governments dissolve that we skip off in a meadow full of daisies, hand in hand. Don't be absurd.

"This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." - Benjamin Tucker
"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
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 6:09:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The Anarchists answer that the abolition of the State will leave in existence a defensive association, resting no longer on a compulsory but on a voluntary basis, which will restrain invaders by any means that may prove necessary." - Benjamin Tucker
"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
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 6:17:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 6:15:46 AM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
All this talk about vigilantes - reminds me how one man was able to take down one of the most well-known vigilantes.

?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 6:29:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 5:59:54 AM, Reasoning wrote:


There have been plenty of societies throughout history that have been, or have been relatively close to, Anarchy. http://en.wikipedia.org...


Every single example listed was incredibly short lived and died out quickly. With the exception of Iceland which was clearly not an anarchist 'state' as it had a Parliament, laws and law enforcement.

"This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." - Benjamin Tucker

A voluntary association, such as the common recognition of a court or ruler?
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 6:32:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Reasoning, perhaps you could elaborate on how your theories would work in actual practice. Or even point to a single commune, or society that historically achieved what it is that you personally mean by anarchism?
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
7/27/2010 6:39:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 6:32:22 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Reasoning, perhaps you could elaborate on how your theories would work in actual practice.

Man would live in peace and do as he pleased, calling no man master. Through voluntary associations great accomplishments could b made all while still holding the Individual and his Liberty pure.

He who wishes to be a baker one day and a shoemaker the next may do so and may be patronized by anyone that will do so.

Thus, man will live in harmony with his fellows and with nature and thus his faculties may be explored to his own volition.

Or even point to a single commune, or society that historically achieved what it is that you personally mean by anarchism?

We do not look back to a golden age of times past, but to a glorious future that has yet to be.

"In abolishing rent and interest, the last vestiges of old-time slavery, the Revolution abolishes at one stroke the sword of the executioner, the seal of the magistrate, the club of the policeman, the gauge of the exciseman, the erasing-knife of the department clerk, all those insignia of Politics, which young Liberty grinds beneath her heel." - Proudhon.
"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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2010 6:53:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 6:39:15 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/27/2010 6:32:22 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Reasoning, perhaps you could elaborate on how your theories would work in actual practice.

Man would live in peace and do as he pleased, calling no man master. Through voluntary associations great accomplishments could b made all while still holding the Individual and his Liberty pure.


What prevents a simple degeneration into mob rule, or for some local strongman to fill the vaccuum of power?

He who wishes to be a baker one day and a shoemaker the next may do so and may be patronized by anyone that will do so.

Don't we have that already, but also in addition the baker has to follow pretty sensible health and safety rules, the shoemaker is bound by the law to produce shoes of a certain quality. Anarchism would seem to be a retroactive step.

Thus, man will live in harmony with his fellows and with nature and thus his faculties may be explored to his own volition.

Humans don't naturally live in harmony.

Or even point to a single commune, or society that historically achieved what it is that you personally mean by anarchism?

We do not look back to a golden age of times past, but to a glorious future that has yet to be.

Hmm that is unfortunate as an example would really help.


"In abolishing rent and interest, the last vestiges of old-time slavery, the Revolution abolishes at one stroke the sword of the executioner, the seal of the magistrate, the club of the policeman, the gauge of the exciseman, the erasing-knife of the department clerk, all those insignia of Politics, which young Liberty grinds beneath her heel." - Proudhon.

I must say I am not really the friend of either rent or interest.
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
7/27/2010 7:04:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/27/2010 6:53:57 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
What prevents a simple degeneration into mob rule, or for some local strongman to fill the vaccuum of power?

What prevents a simple degeneration into mob rule now?

He who wishes to be a baker one day and a shoemaker the next may do so and may be patronized by anyone that will do so.

Don't we have that already, but also in addition the baker has to follow pretty sensible health and safety rules, the shoemaker is bound by the law to produce shoes of a certain quality. Anarchism would seem to be a retroactive step.

Nay. The State through means both direct and indirect makes such things difficult.

Thus, man will live in harmony with his fellows and with nature and thus his faculties may be explored to his own volition.

Humans don't naturally live in harmony.

Which is why Anarchy will be such an advance.

Or even point to a single commune, or society that historically achieved what it is that you personally mean by anarchism?

We do not look back to a golden age of times past, but to a glorious future that has yet to be.

Hmm that is unfortunate as an example would really help.

Quite.
"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