Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Anarchy.

  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thumbs up Anarchy.

    1: a state of society without government or law

    2: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.


    In modern society the term Anarchist is usually stereotyped as somebody who does not want to follow laws or suffer the consequences from committing crimes, but that is a misunderstanding of the idea behind the word. An ideal Anarchist society (one in which free will prevails) would spawn one of the most productive and happy societies ever seen in history. I have noticed many concerns associated with this idea from people throughout my lifetime, so I want to address them here.

    Anarchism’s biggest deterrent has and will continue to be fear. Most people grow up with a negative outlook on humanity as a whole. The good news is never popular and sets no cause for alarm. Those who are viewed as morally and intelligently better are selected to create and execute laws to prevent atrocities from occurring, but now those bad things are viewed as unlawful instead of immoral. Because of the fear involved with dealing with events that can be very harmful to the individual (fight or flight) it is very desirable to have an authority, like a parent, deal with the situation so risk of having harm brought to oneself is reduced by having someone else take a chance on self preservation.

    Before a society chooses how to deal with violence and other evil acts perpetrated by individuals they must understand the mind of a criminal. Just like how a cop does not know which person he pulls over will pull a gun on him, criminals do not know which individuals will fight back and as a result cause direct harm to them. The theory that most people are evil (or scared out of their minds) has made the possession of guns hard to achieve for individuals. Because of this fact, criminals know that the majority of people they terrorize have no means of defense, which makes the fear of them defending themselves laughable. If criminals truly are a problem in an Anarchist society, it would only be for the beginning of it. The demand for self defense would increase dramatically if crime was a problem, which would tip the scales of risk and reward in the favor of good. It would be a fools bet to attempt an immoral act when the majority of people would simply kill the criminal in self defense. The few criminals who are truly illogical would quickly be weeded out through evolution.

    Selfishness would cause the economy to improve more rapidly. No company wants to build roads without being compensated for them and no one wants to pay a fixed price for roads they may or may not be using to a certain extent, so people would be charged for individual use. Individuals who attempt to get past these transaction requirements would be stopped by hired guards if the need was necessary. Excessively high prices would be unlikely because other businesses would offer a lower price if they could make a profit by doing so. Money used to partake in these various transactions would be anything viewed as desirable by the individuals or organizations involved in the agreement. A lot of people would still strive to provide services or sell new technology by their desire to be compensated for their work. Stealing of ideas would be stopped by individual and or hired guard and people who were exposed for doing this would gain a horrible reputation which results in people not wanting to “deal” with them. The black sheep of society (who did not offend to the point that they were eliminated) would have a much harder time trading with anybody because nobody wants to be swindled. Doing harm to others will cause harm to oneself would quickly become the norm.

    Education would be at a all time high and everyone would have more money on average. Schools controlled by businesses would spawn from the desire of people who want help educating themselves and their quality will rapidly increase because they will have to compete or risk business failure. Students wishing to focus more on learning instead of socializing in school would not be distracted by the other students who resent being there because they were forced to do so by society. Having the money to pay for education or any other service would be a much lower worry on average because people will no longer have to pay for things they are not using in taxes. Believe me, only paying for what you use is a much lower price than paying for other people and yourself, just think about the headache you get when it’s tax time!

    Regulation of services prevents fair trade. No person, group, or Government can better judge the fairness of a transaction better than the individuals choosing to partake in it. Creating regulations to prevent people from willingly partaking in a transaction that is not satisfactory to them is against self development. Babies have to fall down a couple of times before they learn to stand, so it is counterproductive to prevent them from trying. The idea of government is related to parenting. It is the myth that adults are not capable or willing to handle situations that involve them without having the invisible hand of regulations and laws to guide them in the “right direction”. How are people going to know which way is the right way if nobody is ever allowed to choose for themselves?

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Great, well thought-out post. You outlined many of Anarchism's obstacles. The biggest obstacle to Anarchy in my opinion though, is fear, which you've mentioned. The reason I don't think it's ever going to happen is because people can't believe in it. Many people say its because "people aren't perfect", which I disagree with. I think its more of the fact that 1) People can't look for better solutions, other than what the government gives them, and 2) Anarchy has such a negative portrayal in mainstream society that people just instantly dismiss it as blasphemy. Just the mere mention of the word Anarchy and people will think of chaos most of the time. We've been so force fed lies about Anarchy from our masters that people can't even think or judge for themselves anymore. When I usually tell my friends about Anarchism, I use Libertarian Socialism instead, so they know what Anarchy is not, then I gradually use the term Anarchy. Just like the Social Revolution, change comes slowly, not over a day. I do have some doubts about a state of Anarchy, but hey, just because its an uphill battle doesn't mean we should stop fighting for it.

    By the way, what sect of Anarchism do you strive for?
    “It is not for your country that you fight when you go to war. It's for you governors, your rulers, your capitalistic masters. Neither your country, humanity, neither you nor your class-the workers-gain anything by war. It is only the big financiers and capitalists who profit by it.”
    -Alexander Berkman

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crack View Post
    By the way, what sect of Anarchism do you strive for?
    Individualist Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, Voluntaryism, I think there are way too many definitions for Anarchy lol. Which ones do you like?
    Resist Delusion!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    I was pretty sure you were going to say Anarcho-Capitalism. I'm into Social Anarchism: Anarcho-Communism/Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism.
    “It is not for your country that you fight when you go to war. It's for you governors, your rulers, your capitalistic masters. Neither your country, humanity, neither you nor your class-the workers-gain anything by war. It is only the big financiers and capitalists who profit by it.”
    -Alexander Berkman

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crack View Post
    I was pretty sure you were going to say Anarcho-Capitalism. I'm into Social Anarchism: Anarcho-Communism/Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism.
    I have never liked any of those. They seem oxymoron to me because they plan to give people fairness and freedom without having them work for it. Whose gonna want to grow Marijuana when they can smoke it for free, and how could human morality be so high that no one would take advantage of the system?
    Resist Delusion!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    First of all, Martyr, kudos on the effort this post must have taken. You have done an excellent job of summing up how anarchy will address the points you claim it will address. The problem your explanations seem to rely very heavily on claims which you have not demonstrated the truth of. I will use a couple of your examples to illustrate my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post

    Before a society chooses how to deal with violence and other evil acts perpetrated by individuals they must understand the mind of a criminal. Just like how a cop does not know which person he pulls over will pull a gun on him, criminals do not know which individuals will fight back and as a result cause direct harm to them. The theory that most people are evil (or scared out of their minds) has made the possession of guns hard to achieve for individuals. Because of this fact, criminals know that the majority of people they terrorize have no means of defense, which makes the fear of them defending themselves laughable. If criminals truly are a problem in an Anarchist society, it would only be for the beginning of it. The demand for self defense would increase dramatically if crime was a problem, which would tip the scales of risk and reward in the favor of good. It would be a fools bet to attempt an immoral act when the majority of people would simply kill the criminal in self defense. The few criminals who are truly illogical would quickly be weeded out through evolution.
    Firstly, you are asserting that a more heavily armed population will result in lower crime rates. That is highly controversial:

    In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-86
    (my emphasis).

    I will try to find the origional article and PM it to you later.

    Secondly, is a society where people are shot on sight truly a society anyone would want to live in? Is it truly just to shoot a person for doing something as little as shoplifting or loitering? What exactly would an anarchist society consider a worthy reason to shoot a criminal for and how would they regulate such shootings?

    Finally, situations are not always what they appear. Let's say you are living in this anarchist society. You are walking down the street with your gun. All of a sudden you see a man in the distance and he is trying to pull a young girl into his car. He does not look like a nice guy. He has tattoos, is wearing a wife-beater tank top, and has a cigarette in his mouth. The little girl is screaming and crying, "no! no! no!" So what do you do? You pull out your gun and shoot the guy right before the little girl yells, "no daddy, I don't want to go to the dentist."

    You thought you just killed a criminal trying to kidnap a little girl. In reality, you killed an innocent, though unkempt father who was innocently trying to pull his scared little girl into the car to take her for a much needed dental check-up.

    Education would be at a all time high and everyone would have more money on average. Schools controlled by businesses would spawn from the desire of people who want help educating themselves and their quality will rapidly increase because they will have to compete or risk business failure.
    And when one of these schools opens up in a poor neighborhood where there is little money? Then what? Is it going to pack up shop and leave and go to an area where it will make significantly more? Will most of these school purposely try to open up in rich neighborhoods because they will be able to make more?

    Students wishing to focus more on learning instead of socializing in school would not be distracted by the other students who resent being there because they were forced to do so by society.
    But many students are forced to be there because of their parents, not only because of the state. Most parents want their children to have a quality education, and many either realize they do not have the qualifications and/or the time to do so themselves.

    Having the money to pay for education or any other service would be a much lower worry on average because people will no longer have to pay for things they are not using in taxes. Believe me, only paying for what you use is a much lower price than paying for other people and yourself, just think about the headache you get when it’s tax time!
    The money taken from taxes, though, is gauranteed to go to education. What about the child who has to suffer because his or her parent does not budget their money correctly or, as can be the case in many poor neighborhoods, is just a deadbeat who does not care.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    First of all, Martyr, kudos on the effort this post must have taken. You have done an excellent job of summing up how anarchy will address the points you claim it will address. The problem your explanations seem to rely very heavily on claims which you have not demonstrated the truth of. I will use a couple of your examples to illustrate my point.
    Thanks Czahar, I look forward to debating about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Firstly, you are asserting that a more heavily armed population will result in lower crime rates. That is highly controversial:


    In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#cite_note-86
    (my emphasis).

    I will try to find the origional article and PM it to you later.
    Please post the article you mentioned here, so everyone can see it. Also, keep in mind that for gun control to affect crime rates criminals have to be aware of it, in anarchy it would be blatantly obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Secondly, is a society where people are shot on sight truly a society anyone would want to live in? Is it truly just to shoot a person for doing something as little as shoplifting or loitering? What exactly would an anarchist society consider a worthy reason to shoot a criminal for and how would they regulate such shootings?.
    That would depend entirely on the specific area. Anarchy would have no set punishments globally, but I can guess that the death penalty would be reserved only for the worst of criminals in most areas. There would be no set regulations, people would merely take note of observations and evidence (if they felt the need) and take the appropriate action. In some cases, they would probably hire an investigation team.


    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    Finally, situations are not always what they appear. Let's say you are living in this anarchist society. You are walking down the street with your gun. All of a sudden you see a man in the distance and he is trying to pull a young girl into his car. He does not look like a nice guy. He has tattoos, is wearing a wife-beater tank top, and has a cigarette in his mouth. The little girl is screaming and crying, "no! no! no!" So what do you do? You pull out your gun and shoot the guy right before the little girl yells, "no daddy, I don't want to go to the dentist."
    Of course not, you walk over and see whats happending and then judge, no need to be irrational.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    You thought you just killed a criminal trying to kidnap a little girl. In reality, you killed an innocent, though unkempt father who was innocently trying to pull his scared little girl into the car to take her for a much needed dental check-up.
    No ones gonna shoot people without figuring out what is happending first. This is based on fear instead of rationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    And when one of these schools opens up in a poor neighborhood where there is little money? Then what? Is it going to pack up shop and leave and go to an area where it will make significantly more? Will most of these school purposely try to open up in rich neighborhoods because they will be able to make more?
    Businesses will do whatever is profitable while competition keeps them in check. If there are still a lot of poor people, we can already access limitless knowladge online for a very low cost, so it would only take a computer rental business for the worst areas. Schools are only a guide to education, people teach themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    But many students are forced to be there because of their parents, not only because of the state. Most parents want their children to have a quality education, and many either realize they do not have the qualifications and/or the time to do so themselves.
    This is true, but if the student is not willing to learn anything, why let him pass the time by bullying those who do want to. Parents can pay for educational materials for there children to learn with, but they cannot force there minds to remember anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by czahar View Post
    The money taken from taxes, though, is gauranteed to go to education. What about the child who has to suffer because his or her parent does not budget their money correctly or, as can be the case in many poor neighborhoods, is just a deadbeat who does not care.
    The child will have to take things into her own hands, remember that there is no law anymore that requires her to stay with her parents, and concerned citizens like you would probably be willing to adopt her. If no wants to adopt her, she will just have to wait until she is capable of making enough money to pay for her own education if she desires to do so.
    Resist Delusion!

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Education would be at a all time high and everyone would have more money on average. Schools controlled by businesses would spawn from the desire of people who want help educating themselves and their quality will rapidly increase because they will have to compete or risk business failure. Students wishing to focus more on learning instead of socializing in school would not be distracted by the other students who resent being there because they were forced to do so by society. Having the money to pay for education or any other service would be a much lower worry on average because people will no longer have to pay for things they are not using in taxes.
    Unless you are saying anarchy guarantees that no one lives in poverty, then there is no guarantee that everyone will get an education.

    Regardless of whatever system you adopt, there will be poor people. So if your child can't get an education if you can't pay for it and it so happens you can't pay for it, then your child does not get an education.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    It is the myth that adults are not capable or willing to handle situations that involve them without having the invisible hand of regulations and laws to guide them in the “right direction”. How are people going to know which way is the right way if nobody is ever allowed to choose for themselves?
    But if I'm running the business, isn't the "right way", the way that benefits me the most and likewise harms my competition the most?

    If I'm selling, say, bread, wouldn't I want to have a monopoly on bread and make sure that none of my competitors can sell theirs? If there are no laws, what's to stop me from using corrupt and even murderous (I have hired killers to remove people who get in my way) means to make sure that I have the only functioning bread company in the country?


    In an anarchist society, I don't see what's to stop the most rich and powerful individuals from taking over and doing what they want with little consequence. If you have so much money you can buy whoever you want to do your bidding or kill them. With no centralized law enforcement to hold you responsible, what's to stop this? Let's say one of the richest men in the country regularly gets his thugs to kidnap a woman at random, take her to his place where he rapes and murders her. The woman's family knows he did this and he doesn't even bother denying it. So what can be done to get justice in this situation? And for the record, the rich man will always have more money and muscle than the victim's family will ever hope to muster.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Unless you are saying anarchy guarantees that no one lives in poverty, then there is no guarantee that everyone will get an education.

    Regardless of whatever system you adopt, there will be poor people. So if your child can't get an education if you can't pay for it and it so happens you can't pay for it, then your child does not get an education.
    I never said it would be perfect, I said it would be much better. If we had any sort of competition within education, it would automatically become better, and people would have more money if they werent taxed so much, so this is an irrefutable conclusion.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if I'm running the business, isn't the "right way", the way that benefits me the most and likewise harms my competition the most?

    If I'm selling, say, bread, wouldn't I want to have a monopoly on bread and make sure that none of my competitors can sell theirs? If there are no laws, what's to stop me from using corrupt and even murderous (I have hired killers to remove people who get in my way) means to make sure that I have the only functioning bread company in the country?


    In an anarchist society, I don't see what's to stop the most rich and powerful individuals from taking over and doing what they want with little consequence. If you have so much money you can buy whoever you want to do your bidding or kill them. With no centralized law enforcement to hold you responsible, what's to stop this? Let's say one of the richest men in the country regularly gets his thugs to kidnap a woman at random, take her to his place where he rapes and murders her. The woman's family knows he did this and he doesn't even bother denying it. So what can be done to get justice in this situation? And for the record, the rich man will always have more money and muscle than the victim's family will ever hope to muster.
    The good will always outnumber the bad, so things like this are very rare in Anarchy. All a centralized law enforcement, or government, does is give the criminals opportunities to slip through undetected by paying off various politicians and officials. This has been shown to be true multiple times in our society. Look at how Al Capone got away with it for as long as he did, by using technicalities and pay offs that the flawed system allowed him to. At least with Anarchy people would have the freedom to prevent evil, instead of being bound by laws to let it pass, and even sent to jail themselves if they oppose it.
    Last edited by Martyr; January 19th, 2010 at 09:39 AM. Reason: typeo
    Resist Delusion!

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    I never said it would be perfect, I said it would be much better. If we had any sort of competition within education, it would automatically become better, and people would have more money if they werent taxed so much, so this is an irrefutable conclusion.
    It's not irrefutable. You are suggesting something that has never been tried. For all you know, 50% of the people in your scenario can't afford the education that we all get as a guarantee.

    What if a good K-12 education costs $50,000 and since there's likewise no law saying that a child must have an education and many parents feel they'd rather have the child working for them? Perhaps most kids won't have an education.

    And with no rules preventing monopolies, monopolies are very likely to happen so it could be that there is only one company performing education services and it can charge whatever it wants.



    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    The good will always outnumber the bad, so things like this are very rare in Anarchy.
    If the good outnumbered the bad, crime would be rare no matter what kind of system we had.

    The fact is crime happens, people murder people and want to get away with it, people rip off other people, there are often shortages of desired things which can cause conflict. The notion that if we just let it all go everyone will get along seems incredibly naive and unrealistic. If you are going to forward that without laws, murder and theft will dramatically decrease, you will need to support that without something other than what appears to be wishful thinking.



    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    All a centralized law enforcement, or government, does is give the criminals opportunities to slip through undetected by paying off various politicians and officials.
    And with Anarchy, they wouldn't even have to bother with that.

    They would be much more free to do whatever they want to whoever they want.


    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    This has been shown to be true multiple times in our society. Look at how Al Capone got away with it for as long as he did, by using technicalities and pay offs that the flawed system allowed him to.
    Al Capone died in prison!

    He had everyone around him either payed off or cowed by threats of violence. If it were not for the government locking him up, he would have remained a free man for the rest of his life. After all, no common person would dare to oppose him.

    So you are trading Al Capone dying in prison with Al Capone never being locked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    At least with Anarchy people would have the freedom to prevent evil, instead of being bound by laws to let it pass, and even sent to jail themselves if they oppose it.
    But then all it comes down to is who has the most power. In other words, it's nothing other than might makes right.

    If you doubt me, then respond to this scenario.

    Let's say Mr. Smith is an incredibly rich and powerful man. He has numerous hired goons that will do whatever he asks because he pays them. So Mr. Smith has these goons kidnap your sister and then Mr. Smith rapes and kills her (and he does this with many other woman on a regular basis). Understandably you want justice. Now, given that Mr. Smith will always have more money and goons than you can muster and lives in a very secure place where you can't physically get to him, how are you going to get justice?

    If you do not respond directly, then clearly the answer is you can't.

    And this answer goes for every single crime where the victim is not as powerful as the criminal.
    Last edited by mican333; January 19th, 2010 at 11:49 AM.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    U.S. of A
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Angry Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not irrefutable. You are suggesting something that has never been tried. For all you know, 50% of the people in your scenario can't afford the education that we all get as a guarantee.

    What if a good K-12 education costs $50,000 and since there's likewise no law saying that a child must have an education and many parents feel they'd rather have the child working for them? Perhaps most kids won't have an education.

    And with no rules preventing monopolies, monopolies are very likely to happen so it could be that there is only one company performing education services and it can charge whatever it wants.

    We could freely riot against them until they change their minds.

    Al Capone died in prison!

    He had everyone around him either payed off or cowed by threats of violence. If it were not for the government locking him up, he would have remained a free man for the rest of his life. After all, no common person would dare to oppose him.

    So you are trading Al Capone dying in prison with Al Capone never being locked up.
    Well, if you recognized a threat, one big enough to gather a lot of attention, then many others would probably recognize it as well. I imagine concerned citizens outnumbered Al Capone, and being armed with guns, could crush him fairly quickly. ( a mob of several thousand). No doubt some citizens would die if he wasn't frightened off initially, but i doubt anyone would attempt it again unless planning for a hostile takeover. Like martyr said
    If criminals truly are a problem in an Anarchist society, it would only be for the beginning of it.
    Same for Mr. Smith if he did enough killing and raping and scared enough people.

    (Also, wasn't Al Capone's mafia-thing (I know nothing about him) based on drugs? If it was, in an anarchist society he would have as much power as a sales man. The drugs would be freely shipped from Cuba or wherever, bought by either the users directly or by intermediaries, then sold to whoever pays the most for them. Robbery would be a problem, but eventually solved.)
    I am Hippo

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    We could freely riot against them until they change their minds.
    So basically, you're saying the people en masse will make a rule that companies must allow other companies to exist, even though it's not in their best economic interest to do so?

    So much for anarchy.



    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    Well, if you recognized a threat, one big enough to gather a lot of attention, then many others would probably recognize it as well. I imagine concerned citizens outnumbered Al Capone, and being armed with guns, could crush him fairly quickly. ( a mob of several thousand).
    But then Capone could likewise get his own army together to deal with the threat or assassinate the leader of any resistance before he got the group together.

    And even if the group does crush Capone, why can't the leader of the group decide he's the new crime boss and use his muscle to make everyone else do what he wants?

    The point is, what is to stop the biggest man in the area from taking over? If someone bigger takes him out, then what's to stop that man from ruling?



    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    Same for Mr. Smith if he did enough killing and raping and scared enough people.
    So let's say he didn't. He killed several women, including your sister, but not enough to generate a mass revolt to take him out. So assuming he has more power and muscle than you, how can you get justice?



    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    (Also, wasn't Al Capone's mafia-thing (I know nothing about him) based on drugs? If it was, in an anarchist society he would have as much power as a sales man. The drugs would be freely shipped from Cuba or wherever, bought by either the users directly or by intermediaries, then sold to whoever pays the most for them. Robbery would be a problem, but eventually solved.)
    For the record, I didn't originally bring up Al Capone - Martyr did.

    And why would robbery be eventually solved?

    If I wanted to take your TV and had more "muscle" than you, then what's to stop me from just coming over and taking it from you? Under Anarchy, it would be even easier - I wouldn't have to worry about being arrested for it.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    the world is my abode
    Posts
    737
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Anarchism as a philosophy, as far as I'm aware of it, is based on a premise of equality, and thus non-violence and not using force.
    Anarchy means no archy (greek archos=rule), which means rule. Really all we're looking at is every person being their own ruler - no subjugation, they are each their own and equal.

    If this was adopted, it would become unreasonable to submit others to your own rule - in the form of stealing or oppression.

    I think most of the arguments here come from a lack of understanding about what we're really talking about.

    What's funnier than that is that governments spring from "Anarchy" in the sense most people consider it - that being Chaos (rather than actual Anarchy)... People think that with governments we escape Chaos, but really it's just the effects of a Chaotic system anyhow... But since Anarchism is not the same as Chaosism, we've got something to talk about here...

    Really all a non-Anarchist is saying is that they're personal affairs are best managed by other people. That's the heart of the issue. It might seem that something like the war in Iraq is not a personal affair at all, and we're really just saying "non-personal" affairs should be managed by another person, but that's only because of the complex money trails which are really tough to follow, which go from damned near everything you use to oil as a driving factor in the lives of EVERYONE, and thus a tool for ruling. Of course oil doesn't inherently have this importance, it's only our current powerful technology that makes it such a flexible substitute for any number of other perfectly reasonable materials and methods, and that brings it into such powerful focus (and also somehow out of focus to the bulk of the ruled society.) The point is simply that international affairs is personally connected to everyone through what we eat, and use every day to survive and the non-Anarchist is in favor of giving that decision making capacity to another party. because they don't think they're capable of making those choices for themselves (or just don't want the responsibly of dealing with their own body.)

    The premise of Archy is that people are incapable of taking care of their selves. I think this debate would be much better served if we focused on that:
    Can you take care of your self? And should you be allowed to? And how about everyone else?

    I guess this diverges form the hypothetical nature of the thread though... so maybe it's not really appropriate. I see parallels to the thread on Unschooling.
    I think that if such a state were to occur, people would learn from their experiences and we'd be in more or less the same state of happiness and good and bad as we are now - or better!. Anyone who thinks the way we have it now in the US is all peachy is delusional... government doesn't really serve to do much but complicate things and allow exportation of problems to be a bit easier.

    Now before someone gets going on it... if the hypothetical situation involves an immediate and complete reduction of rule, **** really would hit the fan, but I don't think that's what this hypothetical is talking about.

    It's super that Capitalism, Democracy and Republics has brought us out of the ages of Kings and Emperors, but I'm not sure that what we have now is significantly better than that... we seem to be heading towards a dead end road at worst... if not a cliff with too much speed to stop ourselves.
    Last edited by Supaiku; January 19th, 2010 at 07:07 PM.
    Yo Bizzaa!!

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    U.S. of A
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So basically, you're saying the people en masse will make a rule that companies must allow other companies to exist, even though it's not in their best economic interest to do so?

    So much for anarchy.
    No, not a rule. If i was in a situation where i was being wrongly oppressed (in my own sense of the term), would lash out, if that was the only option that would get results, on a day to day basis. Some of the social norms (in my vision of anarchy, which has been subjected to all social influences and is probably not the correct sense of the term) would apply still in an anarchist society.
    I won't punch that asshole because he is big and could kick the **** out of me. Monopolies here were taken out here because the majority doesn't like them, same in anarchy ( I imagine), only we would take them out instead of Big Brother. And the majority is usually the big guy.

    We (the mob of angry citizens with guns) would beat down one monopoly. Hopefully, the next one would stop and think, how well does this work?, then do a google search and find out what happened to the last monacled and moustached man.(not literally, but you get the idea, hopefully)




    But then Capone could likewise get his own army together to deal with the threat or assassinate the leader of any resistance before he got the group together.


    And even if the group does crush Capone, why can't the leader of the group decide he's the new crime boss and use his muscle to make everyone else do what he wants?


    The point is, what is to stop the biggest man in the area from taking over? If someone bigger takes him out, then what's to stop that man from ruling?
    The big guy is the angry mob of people. But, drugs have no more power than other resources. And water and food are more important to the majority than drugs, so this anarchy mafia would manifest itself in a different form. Now, if you threaten, or appear to threaten, to starve or dehydrate a large group of armed citizens (large enough to make a profit) you would come across a fairly large army, and most people in this anarchist country would probably hear about that large of an event. So, backing up those being threatened would be the principled people who care about other peoples wellfare, and that sort of stuff. Hypothetically. Look at the French revolution.

    To stop the next big man, would be spirit of anarchy.



    So let's say he didn't. He killed several women, including your sister, but not enough to generate a mass revolt to take him out. So assuming he has more power and muscle than you, how can you get justice?

    No justice.



    I'll debate more tomorrow, goodnight. Also, I don't really advocate anarchy.
    Last edited by Dionysus; January 20th, 2010 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Removed floating quote tag
    I am Hippo

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    1,961
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    Thanks Czahar, I look forward to debating about it.
    My pleasure, and my apologies for responding so late.

    Please post the article you mentioned here, so everyone can see it. Also, keep in mind that for gun control to affect crime rates criminals have to be aware of it, in anarchy it would be blatantly obvious.
    I have not had the chance to look for it, so for now, I will concede it.

    That would depend entirely on the specific area. Anarchy would have no set punishments globally, but I can guess that the death penalty would be reserved only for the worst of criminals in most areas. There would be no set regulations, people would merely take note of observations and evidence (if they felt the need) and take the appropriate action. In some cases, they would probably hire an investigation team.
    The advantage of law, though, is that it sets into place appropriate action, making it easier (and therefore, more likely) that such action will take place. People vary on what they consider appropriate action and in a society with no laws, no one's opinion could override the other's. Hell, the person who is stealing might think he would be taking "appropriate action" by robbing from the rich and giving to the poor (i.e., himself) while the rich man who he is stealing from would almost certainly consider his robber's action completely inappropriate. It is not easy to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate action. If it were, an entire branch of philosophy (ethics) would not need to be dedicated to it.

    Of course not, you walk over and see whats happending and then judge, no need to be irrational.
    I certainly would, but not all people are as rational as me.

    No ones gonna shoot people without figuring out what is happending first. This is based on fear instead of rationality.
    I would not call it fear; simply acting without thinking. And what makes you think no one is going to shoot someone without thinking first?

    Businesses will do whatever is profitable while competition keeps them in check. If there are still a lot of poor people, we can already access limitless knowladge online for a very low cost, so it would only take a computer rental business for the worst areas. Schools are only a guide to education, people teach themselves.
    Exactly what type of online education are you talking about? If you are talking about online universities such as the University of Phoenix, then you would still need to pay intructors and staff, which would mean people would still have to pay a decent amount of money for enrollment.


    This is true, but if the student is not willing to learn anything, why let him pass the time by bullying those who do want to.
    I agree with you here, but some states do have programs to such children off the state's hands. I worked for a company (Community Education Partners) which specialized in this. There is certainly no reason a student who wants to learn should have his future put in jeopardy because a bunch of punks and bullies are distracting him.

    Parents can pay for educational materials for there children to learn with, but they cannot force there minds to remember anything.
    Nor can teachers. I am not quite grasping your point here.

    The child will have to take things into her own hands, remember that there is no law anymore that requires her to stay with her parents, and concerned citizens like you would probably be willing to adopt her. If no wants to adopt her, she will just have to wait until she is capable of making enough money to pay for her own education if she desires to do so.
    This certainly does not make anarchy an attractive philosophy. Demanding that a young child take things into their own hands is absolutely absurd. There is no way they could fend for themselves.

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    No, not a rule. If i was in a situation where i was being wrongly oppressed (in my own sense of the term), would lash out, if that was the only option that would get results, on a day to day basis.
    Sure. But mass revolt only happens when everyone agrees that a situation is truly intolerable.

    A bread monopoly is not likely to be that thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    Monopolies here were taken out here because the majority doesn't like them, same in anarchy ( I imagine), only we would take them out instead of Big Brother. And the majority is usually the big guy.
    What if most people aren't aware of how bad monopolies are or don't think they're bad enough to make an effort to oppose?

    And if there's a bread monopoly, how will it be taken out?


    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    We (the mob of angry citizens with guns) would beat down one monopoly. Hopefully, the next one would stop and think, how well does this work?, then do a google search and find out what happened to the last monacled and moustached man.(not literally, but you get the idea, hopefully)
    Again, I find the notion that the mass of people will mob up and destroy a company that holds a monopoly to not be very realistic. And let's say the monopoly has it's own private, well-armed army (realistic with a powerful, wealthy company with enemies).

    So do you think most people will actually risk their life to lower bread prices?


    Quote Originally Posted by angryhippo View Post
    Now, if you threaten, or appear to threaten, to starve or dehydrate a large group of armed citizens (large enough to make a profit) you would come across a fairly large army, and most people in this anarchist country would probably hear about that large of an event. So, backing up those being threatened would be the principled people who care about other peoples wellfare, and that sort of stuff. Hypothetically. Look at the French revolution.
    I agree if things are uniformly intolerable for almost everyone then revolt will happen.

    But that does not equate to a bread monopoly. Sure, people will get better bread at lower prices when there is a rule that says there can be no monopolies, but without that rule there will probably still be bread that people can buy so there is probably not going to be a mass-revolt to destroy the bread company (which then would, at least for a while, ensure that there is no bread going to anyone).

    And of course with Anarchy, a monetary system is impossible so really there would be no money. People would have to barter to do trade.
    Last edited by mican333; January 20th, 2010 at 08:08 AM.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    U.S. of A
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    sorry, i thought we were talking about education. I make my own bread, it isn't difficult.
    I am Hippo

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    U.S. of A
    Posts
    92
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Also, if i saw a market i could set up a lemonade stand type thing for bread, i could do it in an anarchy. there would also be other home grown type stores that could compete on the local market.
    Guess i jumped to rioting a bit too fast, but would be a possibility in that type of society.
    I am Hippo

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    People should not be afraid of their businesses, businesses should be afraid of their people, lol.
    Resist Delusion!

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martyr View Post
    People should not be afraid of their businesses, businesses should be afraid of their people, lol.
    This statement doesn't seem very clear. What do you mean by it? Certainely the case angryhippo has been forwarding (while not necessarily matching your own) is that the prevention of monopolies relies entirely on businesses being afraid of holding one with a discontent market. I.e. afraid of the people.

    But again why should this necessarily become true in an anarchist society? The statement ultimately doesn't mean very much.

    Ultimately I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean and why this is the case, as right now the statement means almost nothing.
    -=]Eliotitus[=-
    "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future"- Oscar Wilde

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anarchy today in the USA!
    By Prime Zombie in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: January 4th, 2010, 06:11 PM
  2. Impermissible Anarchy!
    By Elutherian in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2009, 04:01 PM
  3. Anarchy
    By Skitzofrenia in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Anarchy Online
    By Turtleflipper in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 30th, 2006, 08:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •