Total Posts:335|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Calling all Anarchists

Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:19:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would like to know how your particular interpretation of the anarchist ideology deals with the concept of power vacuums. This concept is, to me, a fatal flaw present in all versions of anarchism.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:20:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:19:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
I would like to know how your particular interpretation of the anarchist ideology deals with the concept of power vacuums. This concept is, to me, a fatal flaw present in all versions of anarchism.

I agree that the ideology is flawed up.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:23:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:22:30 PM, Sieben wrote:
Anarchy is not the absence of power

I realize this, but what happens when the guy with the most power wants to tell others what do to?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:26:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:24:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
You have a state. Are you trying to argue that anarchy will turn back into statism?

I personally think it always will, but what I'm asking is what in theory will prevent this from happening. I'm not trying to debate the merits of anarchy, I'm just trying to understand a part of it that I consider flawed.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:31:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lets get the even-ifs out of the way

Even if anarchy turns back into a state after a certain period of time, it can still be productive. Kind of like how you are eat food to stay full, but hunger always comes again.

Even if anarchy turns back into a state, this cannot be used as an argument against anarchy because the formation of the state is what the statist wants anyway.

The discourse on the stability (or non-stability) of anarchy is rooted in free market theory. I see you are a libertarian, so are you already convinced that the free market is pretty good? You understand how it works bla bla bla?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:34:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The liberty we seek, for ourselves and for others, is not that absolute, abstract, metaphysical liberty which, in practice, inevitably translates into oppression of the weak, but rather, real liberty, the achievable liberty represented by conscious community of interests and willing solidarity. We proclaim the maxim" "Do what you will", and we condense our program, so to speak, into that, because, as will readily be understood, we are convinced that in a harmonious society, in a society without government and without property, "each will want what will be his duty."
-Errico Malatesta
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:38:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:31:27 PM, Sieben wrote:
Lets get the even-ifs out of the way

Even if anarchy turns back into a state after a certain period of time, it can still be productive. Kind of like how you are eat food to stay full, but hunger always comes again.

Okay

Even if anarchy turns back into a state, this cannot be used as an argument against anarchy because the formation of the state is what the statist wants anyway.

Okay

The discourse on the stability (or non-stability) of anarchy is rooted in free market theory. I see you are a libertarian, so are you already convinced that the free market is pretty good? You understand how it works bla bla bla?

Pretty much. Though, I could know more there is no need to explain anything to me. If I'm confused about something you say I'll look it up on my own.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:46:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:23:48 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:22:30 PM, Sieben wrote:
Anarchy is not the absence of power

I realize this, but what happens when the guy with the most power wants to tell others what do to?

You're basically asking, what happens to Anarchy when it switches to statism. Easy answer. It's not Anarchy anymore. You're basically attacking statism, not Anarchy.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:49:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:46:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:23:48 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:22:30 PM, Sieben wrote:
Anarchy is not the absence of power

I realize this, but what happens when the guy with the most power wants to tell others what do to?

You're basically asking, what happens to Anarchy when it switches to statism. Easy answer. It's not Anarchy anymore. You're basically attacking statism, not Anarchy.

I assume you'd like your anarchy to remain an anarchy. Correct?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:50:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:38:24 PM, Korashk wrote:

Pretty much. Though, I could know more there is no need to explain anything to me. If I'm confused about something you say I'll look it up on my own.

Oh I didn't mean to patronize you. I wasn't worried that you wouldn't understand, i was worried I might have to fight with you about price mechanisms and stuff.

This article is pretty succinct. I hate to go tell you to read something but it will be faster than me just typing it up with my own twist on it. http://mises.org...

I'll complement it though. States do not maintain power by having the most physical force. In the USA, it is doubtful that the government could control ALL of us by force alone. There are plenty of small countries where the police got no guns and the military is less than 5,000 people, and half of them are chicks :P.

No, states maintain power ideologically. If you can convince someone not to resist you, you can get a lot done. States have always co opted some mass ideology. In the times of old, the church would tell people to obey the king. As society becomes more interconnected and secular, the state co opts education and influences people from birth.

In short, states need a mythology for the masses to believe. They have the biggest guns, but guns are not enough to rule a society. This is why I am not particularly afraid of anarchy devolving into statism in modern times. With the internet, everyone would see a conquering warlord for what he was. They wouldn't put up with it.

Conqueror's operation costs would be very high, almost certainly prohibitive. So it doesn't really matter if someone has the biggest guns... it is uneconomic to use them to form a state. Religion is probably the biggest threat to anarchy (only because it is so easily co opted, not because there is something wrong with religiousness).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 5:53:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:49:04 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:46:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You're basically asking, what happens to Anarchy when it switches to statism. Easy answer. It's not Anarchy anymore. You're basically attacking statism, not Anarchy.

I assume you'd like your anarchy to remain an anarchy. Correct?

Sure, but I already anticipate your reply, and thus already have an answer.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:11:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I personally think Anarchism is too idealistic. There will always be people who want to be at top, having power. As others have pointed out, these people could easily reform a state thus making the Anarchist society no longer anarchistic. I think this says alot: http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:13:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Somalia is way better since the state collapse. http://www.observatori.org...

The anarchist thesis is that ceteris parabis, anarchy is better. I would rather live in a futuristic fascist work camp than medieval anarchy. Doesn't justify fascism or disprove anarchy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:19:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
I would like to know how your particular interpretation of the anarchist ideology deals with the concept of power vacuums. This concept is, to me, a fatal flaw present in all versions of anarchism.

PDF: http://mises.org...
"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
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:34:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 5:53:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:49:04 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/24/2010 5:46:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You're basically asking, what happens to Anarchy when it switches to statism. Easy answer. It's not Anarchy anymore. You're basically attacking statism, not Anarchy.

I assume you'd like your anarchy to remain an anarchy. Correct?

Sure, but I already anticipate your reply, and thus already have an answer.

You kind of midunderstood what I asked. I'm not asking what happens when anarchy switches to statism. To me the eventual formation of a state is an inevitable result of anarchy.

I am asking you, the anarchist, what in theory impedes this from happening. Sieben provided an explanation as to how a warlord wouldn't be able to take over. I may not have agreed that his explanation would work, but I do realize that it is a legitimate explanation of the idea.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:41:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd also say that warlordism is really an attempt at slavery, which has already shown itself to be unstable. See manumission contracts.

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

There hasn't been a lot of work developed on this subject, which is unfortunate, but as far as I can see slaveowners face a motivational problem and calculation problem. The motivational problem is obvious enough to see, and is remedied very crudely. The calculation problem refers to the fact that a slaveowner is essentially a communist planner. He has no prices or other way to access the tacit information of the market.

So slavery can work, albeit very very clumsily. The opportunity cost of freedom is too great. Slavery collapses.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:42:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 6:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think Anarchism is too idealistic.

Idealistic: "1. of or pertaining to idealism or idealists." - dictionary.com

Idealism: "1. the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc." - dictionary.com

So, I guess the only question for you is, "how low should we aim in setting the standards of our government?" Are we not to demand that government even be good?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 6:44:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 6:42:50 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/24/2010 6:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think Anarchism is too idealistic.

Idealistic: "1. of or pertaining to idealism or idealists." - dictionary.com

Idealism: "1. the cherishing or pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc." - dictionary.com

So, I guess the only question for you is, "how low should we aim in setting the standards of our government?" Are we not to demand that government even be good?

Government is good. I don't exactly like the idea of people running around able to do basically whatever they want.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:15:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 6:13:58 PM, Sieben wrote:
The anarchist thesis is that ceteris parabis, anarchy is better.

"[The anarchists] have never claimed that liberty will bring perfection; they simply say that its results are vastly preferable to those that follow from authority .... As a choice of blessings, liberty is the greater; as a choice of evils, liberty is the smaller. Then liberty always says the Anarchist. No use of force except against the invader." - 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
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:15:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 6:44:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think a government is?

It keeps the populace under control, and this is a good thing. Humans, and any animal species for that matter naturally need authority or hell will break loose.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:19:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 6:44:28 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Government is good.

"Aggression is simply another name for government." - Benjamin Tucker

Of course, sometime aggression can benefit me and further my ends. In these cases, I support aggression. I also support government programs that benefit me. But I have yet to identify one.
"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
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:21:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 7:15:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 6:44:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think a government is?

It keeps the populace under control, and this is a good thing. Humans, and any animal species for that matter naturally need authority or hell will break loose.

I asked what a government was, not what you think it does.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:26:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 7:21:21 PM, Sieben wrote:
I asked what a government was, not what you think it does.

"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." - Leo Tolstoy
"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
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:26:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 7:21:21 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/24/2010 7:15:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 6:44:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think a government is?

It keeps the populace under control, and this is a good thing. Humans, and any animal species for that matter naturally need authority or hell will break loose.

I asked what a government was, not what you think it does.

Very well...

government
noun
1 [treated as sing. or pl. ] the governing body of a nation, state, or community an agency of the federal government | [as adj. ] government controls.
• the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed : a secular, pluralistic, democratic government.
• the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:29:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"[W]hat essentially sets a nation-state apart, a monopoly on, on violence." - Constitutional Scholar and President of the United States, Barack Obama
"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
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:32:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 7:26:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 7:21:21 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/24/2010 7:15:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 6:44:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think a government is?

It keeps the populace under control, and this is a good thing. Humans, and any animal species for that matter naturally need authority or hell will break loose.

I asked what a government was, not what you think it does.

Very well...

government
noun
1 [treated as sing. or pl. ] the governing body of a nation, state, or community an agency of the federal government | [as adj. ] government controls.
• the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed : a secular, pluralistic, democratic government.
• the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people

"Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2010 7:33:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/24/2010 7:26:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 7:21:21 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/24/2010 7:15:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2010 6:44:51 PM, Sieben wrote:
What do you think a government is?

It keeps the populace under control, and this is a good thing. Humans, and any animal species for that matter naturally need authority or hell will break loose.

I asked what a government was, not what you think it does.

Very well...

government
noun
1 [treated as sing. or pl. ] the governing body of a nation, state, or community an agency of the federal government | [as adj. ] government controls.
Circular definition.
• the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed : a secular, pluralistic, democratic government.
So any system of rules is a government? This forum has rules. Is this forum a government?
• the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people
Walmart tells its employees when to work. It "regulates" people. Is walmart a government?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...