• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions for Anarchists

WildCat said:
Aren't these the same guys who like to destroy other people's property? :boggled:
Click to expand...
Probably not. Whether or not violence should be used tends to be a dividing factor amongst anarchists, as with most political groups.

And some of those who do like to destroy other people's property make the distinction of being nice to people while not extending such kindness to the things they own. It makes sense if you share their worldview, otherwise, not so much. :)
 
Rufo said:
Probably not. Whether or not violence should be used tends to be a dividing factor amongst anarchists, as with most political groups.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I don't recall ther Dems or the GOP or the Green party or te Libertarians arguing whether they should use violence... who are these political groups you're talking about?

And some of those who do like to destroy other people's property make the distinction of being nice to people while not extending such kindness to the things they own. It makes sense if you share their worldview, otherwise, not so much. :)
Click to expand...
Most of those guys are living off daddy's trust fund.
 
WildCat said:
:confused:

I don't recall ther Dems or the GOP or the Green party or te Libertarians arguing whether they should use violence... who are these political groups you're talking about?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have used the term 'political philosophy' rather than 'group'. Anarchism is a term that covers a broad range of ideologies whose exact goals are sometimes further apart than the parties you mentioned, and whose methods range from complete pacifism to rioting and terrorism. Usually there are some conflicting ideologies within a philosophy this broad who disagree about which methods are okay.

My impression is that the anarchists who think people are basically good and will do good to each other are frequently not the ones who advocate destroying people's property.

Most of those guys are living off daddy's trust fund.
Click to expand...
Whatever they're living off, I assume they don't very much value whatever property they may have.
 
There is, of course, the thermodynamic argument. Anarchy has, at times and places in human history and geography, existed. The fact that it doesn't ever persist should make it clear that, however desireable, it's an unstable state. Therefore, arguments about whether or not long term anarchy is desireable are no more relevant or useful than arguments about whether telekinesis or communication with the dead are desireable; long term anarchy is an impossibility.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
There is, of course, the thermodynamic argument. Anarchy has, at times and places in human history and geography, existed. The fact that it doesn't ever persist should make it clear that, however desireable, it's an unstable state. Therefore, arguments about whether or not long term anarchy is desireable are no more relevant or useful than arguments about whether telekinesis or communication with the dead are desireable; long term anarchy is an impossibility.

Dave
Click to expand...
While I understand and to some degree think this is a good argument, it's problematic, because the same can be said for most alternatives. Whether one argues for democracy, meritocracy, autocracy or virtually any other form of government, they are still not entirely stable states. They are all dependent on a culture which supports them and a lack of desire or ability to change.

Whether power is taken by force (such as a military coup d'état or a revolution) or is given up more or less voluntarily (such as a majority vote to establish dictatorship or a reform towards democracy), stability exists mostly when people believe in the current system. Systems won't persist indefinitely.

The question is rather whether or not people can believe in anarchy on a large scale, being aware of the alternatives. While one may consider this unlikely or impossible, I would not consider it comparable to ideas about supernatural phenomena.
 
Anarchism is a "wouldn't it be cool if..." ideology. They say they want to do things like abolish money and give everyone a free house and free food but they haven't a clue how a massive undertaking like that is going to be achieved. They think that crime will go away once people are free of corrupting influences like government and corporations

It's essentially faith.

There was a lively discussion about anarchism on the RD forums where this guy totally pwned an anarchist hard. Starts getting interesting about here: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=70768&hilit=anarkissed&start=120
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
I don't recall ther Dems or the GOP or the Green party or te Libertarians arguing whether they should use violence... who are these political groups you're talking about?
Click to expand...
While I've already tried to answer this question, I'd like to expand my reply a bit. These political groups do frequently argue about whether or not to use violence, in forms like war or capital punishment. While these might seem distant from the uncontrolled violence practiced by anarchists, the key difference is that these forms of violence are practiced in disciplined, ordered forms by means of authority. To anarchists, who do not believe in authority as a means for order, this distinction is not as relevant, which is why their internal conflict about violence or non-violence looks different.

Virus said:
Anarchism is a "wouldn't it be cool if..." ideology. They say they want to do things like abolish money and give everyone a free house and free food but they haven't a clue how a massive undertaking like that is going to be achieved. They think that crime will go away once people are free of corrupting influences like government and corporations

It's essentially faith.
[...]
Click to expand...
It's certainly true that there are many naïve proponents of anarchism, but as with Dave Rogers' statement, this technically goes for plenty of political philosophies; one can compare any ideology one does not believe in to faith. There are always those who refuse to see the downsides to their own ideals, be it socialism, free market economy, democracy, pacifism, nationalism or any other. When people believe blindly in an ideal and are unable to see the realistic effects of it clearly, yes, that is essentially faith. When people understand the consequences and are prepared to face them, that is not. This goes for anarchism as well.

Segnosaur said:
[...]
Best quote from the comic:
"Anarchy... where the stronger rule the weak, and guess where your place is pugsley? Anarchy is your 6th grade gym class for all eternity"
Click to expand...
While the strong ruling the weak is certainly a possible outcome of anarchy, it's hardly the ideal that anarchists are striving for. And, again, this goes for plenty of other forms of government as well.
 
Rufo said:
It's certainly true that there are many naïve proponents of anarchism, but as with Dave Rogers' statement, this technically goes for plenty of political philosophies.
Click to expand...

The entire idea is a naive, faith-based utopia. There's absolutely no pressure on anarchists to be practical with their ideas like there is with democratic political parties.
 
Virus said:
The entire idea is a naive, faith-based utopia. There's absolutely no pressure on anarchists to be practical with their ideas like there is with democratic political parties.
Click to expand...
Which idea? Abolition of the state? There is pressure to be practical for anyone who wants to see an ideology put into practice. Why would anarchists not attempt to be practical with their ideas when they have the opportunity?
 
Rufo said:
Which idea? Abolition of the state? There is pressure to be practical for anyone who wants to see an ideology put into practice. Why would anarchists not attempt to be practical with their ideas when they have the opportunity?
Click to expand...
Of course they'd attempt to be practical, and this is why it would quickly turn into fascism or some other despotic form of government.
 
GreyArea said:
The best question I can think of is how much time non-wonky people would really spend going to meetings. If there is to be no sub-group of rulers making rules for everyone, how long will the entire population be willing to keep participating in rule-making? I expect a lot of burnout, and would be interested to hear how she thinks this problem would be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I think you don't understand the idea at least some (most?) people have of a shiny-happy anarchy.

The whole idea is that there would be no group making rules and enforcing them upon everyone else. That's already a form of "archy" and that's what they're "an" about. The idea is more like that people would just, you know, find some way to live together without someone telling them how.

Basically as even anarchy faqs would tell you (since you mention those), anarchy is about the absence of a ruler or rule or authority. Such a council making rules for anarchists is a nonsense. That's your (collective) ruler, authority and rules snuck back in.

Granted though, some other people's idea of a workable anarchy -- though I think most of those wouldn't self-identify as anarchists -- is actually not an anarchy at all, but simply a more decentralized kind of republic and/or more towards direct voting by everyone on more (or all) issues. So if you deal with one of those, yeah, it has to be addressed differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom