Any Anarchist in the forum?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm curious about how many of you are skeptics regarding supernatural stuff, but have no problems whatsoever and just accept the current political and economical systems. Can we be "true skeptics" if can reject the church but not the government?

I would have to state that I'm sort of a "anarchist communist", but I'm not quite sure if there is really a label for what I consider it would be a more advanced system of production, distribution and consumption of human made stuff and natural stuff.

Heck, I don't even agree with most current beliefs, like what exactly constitutes "a property". To put an example, we all can use the bus to get where we want, but it is not "ours" in the sense a car is. In the end "a property" is just a convention, a custom, and nothing more, it is not real outside a determinate culture (exactly like Allah or Jeovah)

 

[dudalb]

I don't think Skeptic means what you think it means.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The government tends to support great scientific, rational institutions such as medicine and missions to other worlds. A non-existent government cannot ban burning witches or killing black people. Government can be proven to stop nonesense being taught in schools.

I'm not saying it cannot be rational, but in an anarchist society, where is the welfare for the mentally unwell, the eradication of religion in the science class, or the MMR vaccines for children?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't think Skeptic means what you think it means.

You doubt about the conventions, common beliefs, ad hoc hypothesis, stablished "best" ways to doing things, and etc. In fact the first definition in a dictionary states:

skep·tic also scep·tic (skĕp'tĭk)

n.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Question... what do you believe skepticism is about?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The government tends to support great scientific, rational institutions such as medicine and missions to other worlds. A non-existent government cannot ban burning witches or killing black people. Recently, it stopped nonesense being taught in schools.

I'm not saying it cannot be rational, but in an anarchist society, where is the welfare for the mentally unwell, the eradication of religion in the science class, or the MMR vaccines for children?

It depends on what do you think it is an anarchist society. Would you agree in that there are unexplored ways of government?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought anarchism simply meant, well, anarchism? As in no government at all?

Wouldn't it be better to call yourself a strong Libertarian? Communism seems to be the very antithesis of anarchism, especially under Marx and Engels.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm curious about how many of you are skeptics regarding supernatural stuff, but have no problems whatsoever and just accept the current political and economical systems. Can we be "true skeptics" if can reject the church but not the government?

Don't know. What size kilt do you wear?

I would have to state that I'm sort of a "anarchist communist", but I'm not quite sure if there is really a label for what I consider it would be a more advanced system of production, distribution and consumption of human made stuff and natural stuff.

The term for this is "economic illiterate".

Read JBS Haldane's On Being the Right Size, in which Haldane, a communist, explains why communism doesn't work.

Adding anarchy to the mix is hardly going to improve things.

 

[dudalb]

Anarchy would simply mean the strongest would ruthlessly exploit anybody not as strong.
In fact I think that Anrarchy is impossible. Any Anarchy would become a Tyranny as soon as somebody was strong enough.
It's called common sense.

 

[dudalb]

We call ourselves Skeptics, but it is really more about Rational thinking and NOT ACCEPTING CLAIMS WITHOU PROOF,then about doubting everything.
For some time I have really thought Skeptic is not the "popular" best term for Rational Thinkers, but it is so widely used in that sense it is probably impossible to change.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Wouldn't it be better to call yourself a strong Libertarian? Communism seems to be the very antithesis of anarchism, especially under Marx and Engels.

Well it depends on the school of anarchy you're talking about. Anarcho-Capitalists would basically be extreme Libertarianism to the point where the state is near nonexistent (most groups call for direct democracy), the economy is unabated, and most even call for privately funded militaries and police forces.

The more Marxist anarchies are basically just calls for direct democracies, I think they'll organize into city-states for convenience but I've had others attempt to refute it, and "state" ownership of the economy.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I thought anarchism simply meant, well, anarchism? As in no government at all?

Wouldn't it be better to call yourself a strong Libertarian? Communism seems to be the very antithesis of anarchism, especially under Marx and Engels.

Labels are merely a way to try that others understand what we think. I don't believe there would be a label that encompasses all what I think on these subjects.

I chose anarchist communism because it rejects political power, hierarchy and domination of some groups towards the rest of the people, but in the end I do not believe this is achievable. Why? Because like other species some humans are naturally dominant while others are followers. So, the solution would be somewhere in the middle. For example, a system in which every individual would form the government for a period (say from 40 to 43). Note that I do not claim to have the answers, I merely doubt that current societies are good in terms of its efficiency (not moral arguments involved).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Don't know. What size kilt do you wear?

The term for this is "economic illiterate".

Read JBS Haldane's On Being the Right Size, in which Haldane, a communist, explains why communism doesn't work.

Adding anarchy to the mix is hardly going to improve things.

Ah the old Pixy. Don't let your personal feelings mess with your reading and answers. First of all, I didn't understand that about the kilts, care to explain?

And regarding your label, thanks, that would be your (biased) opinion. I do not ascribe myself to communism, and I do not claim to be an expert in politics (by far). All I'm doing in this thread is asking who likes anarchism (in one way or the other) in the forum and pointing out that (liking it ) is some form of skepticism. A way to state that you do not agree with the way humans organize some of their affairs.

 

[godofpie]

Yes, I am the Antichrist. Oh, sorry. I guess I read that wrong.
You mean like this, right?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Anarchy would simply mean the strongest would ruthlessly exploit anybody not as strong.
In fact I think that Anrarchy is impossible. Any Anarchy would become a Tyranny as soon as somebody was strong enough.
It's called common sense.

Funny that you used these words, because that's kind of what it actually happens!!! Anarchy, on the contrary, would simply mean more that there would be no power conceded from the public to any individual in particular. Or that the power would be extremely limited.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We call ourselves Skeptics, but it is really more about Rational thinking and NOT ACCEPTING CLAIMS WITHOU PROOF,then about doubting everything.

So that would mean that most forum members are not "real skeptics"? Why do some doubt about the authority of the church, any church, but not the authority of current governments?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well it depends on the school of anarchy you're talking about. Anarcho-Capitalists would basically be extreme Libertarianism to the point where the state is near nonexistent (most groups call for direct democracy), the economy is unabated, and most even call for privately funded militaries and police forces.

The more Marxist anarchies are basically just calls for direct democracies, I think they'll organize into city-states for convenience but I've had others attempt to refute it, and "state" ownership of the economy.

"Direct democracies", sounds interesting, will read about them, thanks.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, I am the Antichrist. Oh, sorry. I guess I read that wrong.
You mean like this, right?

Music is a good example. Is there a "right way" to create music? or is it more about the people who chooses to make it and hear it? We do not need a government to determine what kind of music we should be listening.

 

[WildCat]

How's anarchy working out in Somalia? When will you be moving there Bodhi Dharma Zen?

If you feel this is an unfair question, please illustrate how an anarchist society can end up any other way.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How's anarchy working out in Somalia? When will you be moving there Bodhi Dharma Zen?

If you feel this is an unfair question, please illustrate how an anarchist society can end up any other way.

It is unfair yes (fairness is a matter of opinion), because you only reckon the simplest, least interesting meaning of the word, ignoring its political use.

Let me illustrate, you refer to:

an·ar·chy (ăn'ər-kē)

n., pl. -chies.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

While I refer to:

anarchy (in Politics)

Lack of centralized authority. Within polities social relations are hierarchically ordered by the state or other social institutions. Between polities unilateral power or co-operation may provide order, but there is no generally accepted authority or world government to settle disputes and enforce law. This is why many writers on international relations routinely refer to the international system as an anarchy even though they know very well that it is not anarchic in the vulgar sense of being disorderly.

Can you spot the difference?

Now, tell me what's wrong in believing that a society can be organized in a way that allows a "star" football player and an average scientist to have the same standard of life?

 

[plumjam]

Am no expert on anarchism, but just reading through the thread it seems to me like it would suffer from an internal contradiction. Anarchism, apparently, wants to limit the concentration of power. Yet in order to work it would need to be able to enforce such a principle. And the enforcement itself would necessitate some kind of concentration and control of power.