Debate Anarchy

This thread is all about the merits (or lack thereof) of Anarchy.

For the purposes of speed, I'm going to reproduce a rant I wrote ealier.

I've yet to actually read a post/article ANYWHERE that could make me consider anarchy a valid choice... so go ahead and try (deathfly I'm looking in your direction )

 

I agreee that there are some people out there who don't reallt know what their protesting against and that their only doing it maybe for the reason that some friend of theirs is doing the same thing.

I think that some people get angry when asked to explain why their doing what their doing cause like so many people i know they don't like it when people question their belifs and their morals, but then again that just adds to the fact that they really don't know what their doning cause whenever they're asked about it they really don't have a proper answer or argument so that they can defend their belief.

People who don't have a proper argument are kind of wasting ours and they're own time. While i'm all for freedom of speech i think it would be best to have some sort of fact to back it up.

So i agree with Neph on this. But then again theres not much you can do to shut them up.

 

Now, even though I don't like our (US) current government, and I don't exactly agree with some of the ways it works, I still am definitely not an advocate for anarchy. I mean, at least a few decency rules are required for civilization to even exist, hence the name "civilization": it's a group of civil people, or people with foundational rules.

Or, you could run around killing every person in sight.

 

Ugh, anarchy is such a stupid and pointless ideal. I see all these punk types in my school, with the whole "anarchy" sign thing(the a with the circle around it) and that just makes me lose any respect that I may have for them. It's so unrealistic, I mean, who in thier right mind would think that total unoriginization would be cool? OK, so I'll lgo out and form a lynch mob and kill off everyone I don't like. Yay for anarchy...

 

not just that, but pure anarchy would be impossible to achieve in the first place, let alone maintain in any shape or form. besides, if america say went to anarchy, how could it exist in the modern world? you can't just isolate an entire country, and create a little world where anything goes. There's a wider world out there and countries depend on each other.
i don't think theres going to be much of a debate here.

 

Just wait for deathfly to get in here. We had a dicussion over AIM and she took my refutations of her arguments as attacks on her. I have logs if you want.

 

lol. if she doesn't turn up send them to us would you?. they should be a funny read.

 

Yes, do

Anarchists have a way of pissing me off as well.. Thre is just no way to justify it. The ones who piss me off are those who say "I hate cops" or some such crap. I can understand thinking that the cops pick on you or something if all you are doing is smoking some weed or downloading music, but when you start to say "I wish there were no cops," you cross the line into being a moron.

Neph, thanks for the rant. It saves me some time

 

Logs sent.

 

anarchy doesn't really work on a large scale..

be fun though

 

“([Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that people are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders human development. Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations.
Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoic philosophy, is regarded as the father of anarchism. In the Middle Ages the anarchist tradition was closely linked to utopian, millenarian religious movements such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit of the 13th cent. and the Anabaptists of the 16th cent. The philosophy of modern political anarchism was outlined in the 18th and 19th cent. by William Godwin, P. J. Proudhon, and others.
Mikhail Bakunin attempted to orient the First International toward anarchism but was defeated by Karl Marx. Bakunin gave modern anarchism a collectivist and violent tone that has persisted despite the revisionary efforts of Piotr Kropotkin and Leo Tolstoy. Political anarchism in Russia was suppressed by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution.
Anarchism's only real mass following was in Latin countries, where its doctrines were often combined with those of syndicalism, especially in Spain. In the United States, early anarchists such as Josiah Warren were associated with cooperatives and with utopian colonies. After the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886 and the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 a law was passed forbidding anarchists to enter the country, and Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were among those deported. The Sacco-Vanzetti Case attests to the fear of anarchism in the United States.
As an organized movement, anarchism is largely dead, but it retains importance as a philosophical attitude and a political tendency, and to lesser degree as a source of social protest. In recent years they have mounted highly visible, sometimes violent or destructive public protests at international conferences attended by representives of the governments and corporations of major industrialized nations, such as meetings of the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, and the World Economic Forum.
See R. Kedward, The Anarchists (1971); G. Runkle, Anarchism, Old and New (1972); M. Nettlau, History of Anarchism (3 vol., 1978).)”
...ok that for understanding it….
Now here are some good sources about anarchy:

http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/
look up Henry David Thoreau
Noam Chomsky
Mikhail Bakunin
Lysander Spooner,
No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/anarchy/theory/faq/
that one has lots of the same reason y I belief it

but im not saying I belief it completely.. it’s the lesser of …all evils….peace and love

But im not saying I belief it completely... it’s the lesser of ...All evils….peace and love.. Happy I responded… *Looking back to you direction*... meepers beepers... I’ll write more if you don’t want to read my entire… oh ya.. read some of noam choamsky’s books. He is a great writer that backs up every single one of his claims. :anime:

 

Normally, I make a note of avoiding this forum, but tonight I'm making an acception. Don't you feel special?

Okay, here's my point:
If you are trying to defend anarchism, shouldn't your first task be to form your own thoughts instead of recycling the views of others?

Secondly, "economic power" is not concentrated in businesses. In fact, in nearly any country worldwide, the economy is determined mostly by a combination of government policy and, more importantly, by the basic laws of supply and demand. Before you talk about the Industrial Revolution, I suggest you educate yourself in the Commercial Revolution of Western Europe. This is a time in which much of Italy was made up of "communes" (independant city-states that were governed by a body of officials from the people and the various craft and merchant guilds rather than a monarch or feudal lord). Among other contributions to society, these communes created some of the most fundamental economic theory. But I digress. I will get to the main point.
A business cannot control the economy. It cannot control people. It cannot really do much of anything without being allowed to do so. Businesses make profit only because the consumer purchases their good or service. So, in essence, the businesses are controlled by the general public, because without consumers there is no profit, and without profit there is no capital, and without capital there is no business.

Third, do not bring anything about Spain's political history into any argument. It is a very, very, very poor example of anything.

Nothing I can say, however, changes the importance of my first point. Think for yourself. Don't just spew back garbage self-proclaimed philosophers have said in the past.

 

And how do you seek to prove this, particularly when society is natural? Wouldn't it simply work out that corruption via institutions is then inherently natural? How? Societies have leaders. Like it or not, there is always an alpha male, a leader of the pack so to speak.

But the government has advanced development. Ask yourself where you have a better life expectancy: Modern Canada, or primitive Iceland.

Novus pretty much handled this for me.

Paradoxes tend not to exist long. How do you organize anarchy?

Then wouldn't a country like Canada be the ideal choice? We aren't exactly a major terrorist target, we have lots of rights, our laws tend to be very fair, and in case we DID somehow get targeted, we have enough of both diplomacy and military power (albiet a somewhat weak military vs the larger powers) to minimize or remove it. Our socialist aspects help care for those who can't make a living, while our capitalist aspects mean that there is still a drive to deliver the "latest, greatest thing", hence providing drive for improvement in tech and living arrangements.

 

Oh wow! You can quote book summaries and history classes, u r so speshul.

Really, I've read through your post time after time (idly sobbing over your positively horrific capabilities of spelling and grammar) and all I can see is you proving just how bad Anarchy is. I mean, here you give tons of examples of when it had tried to risen.. and what happend? OH THAT'S RIGHT, IT GET FUBARED. I knew there was something strange about it!

Maybe I should bold the part about "SOMETIMES VIOLENT OR DESTRUCTIVE PUBLIC PROTESTS".

Yes... the lesser of all evils, indeed.

Really, Novus put it the best way (yeah, I know, I'm actually agreeing with Novus, something I don't do often.. must be the Apocalypse or something ;P)

You come in here, spewing out facts that you didn't even discover and just threw out ideas that you took from books and sounded cool. In FACT, it seems like you went to a local Barnes And Noble or Borders book store, looked for the section entitled "Attention Craving Posers", picked up the first thing you saw and said "MY GOD THIS IS BLOODY GENIUS! MINEMINEMINE" and spewed it all over, claiming it as your philosophy to try and seem even remotely intelligent.

Come up with a single coherent thought ON YOUR OWN.

Watch the ad-homs. - Ark

 

:anger2: ok.. i had 5 min to type anything and i couldn't let anything go by.. alright.. thats one.. 2.. the thing in qoute marks at the top was the DEFINITION that i got out of yahoo..
i had to go to work ( i voulenteer)5 min later.. so i had to type fast.. but ya its all good.. i dont mind you bashing all i believ at all..(sigh) but ya

ok anarchy is a way out of society larger coperations..what i sent in the first post was a discription of anarchy.. not the entire thing.. anarchisum is not based on any ONE person's ideas, but on practical plans for the reorganisation of socity..you would think that anarchy is a for of marxism plus violence or extreem side of marxism.. but it si not nesiserly violent.. but demorcrsy isn't the "violent" free society is it.. ever few min a girl is raped.. a person is hot.. and money goes to a war for oil and for land.. NOT to liberate the people of iraq. if we were to liberate them.. and save them from sadam.. then what are we doing there( ok off subject).. no way of living has proven peaeful or bloodless yet.. but at least anarcey isn't going to call violence "freedom" or war "liberation" or industlisum " profit".. they wont call for it..monopoly's are ruling our income and our profits for stuff we buy right back from them.. we are slaves to it..but in anarchey, we would choose what is needed.. and not what we want.. the more we want.. the less attention is put where it is needed.. look to europe, there is a small country that hands out condums in elimentery school.. when i rememer which country, i will write it.. pot is leagle, and rape is down, sex is down and so is violence. like all laws, if there were no laws, someone will be able to enjoy it for a bleek amount of time.. then it will be as used as a party popers.. only for special occations..please tell my why demacrsy is good?your asking me why anarchey is good.. so i am speaking.. but democrsy had slavory( flor a long time may i add), anti- german rallys that accually got all german workers and student in the united stated kicked out of their jobs and education(ww1 and 2) people were killed bush let 9-11 attack succed when he knew about it, though some people were peace ful.. the accuall peopl's minds were brainwashed with items, propaganda, and most of all the idea that the united states was HELPING THEM. . and we is pacifism a trend with Aarchisum?( i know im a pacivist) Though phoney Anarchisum contanes streaks pacivisum, being militant liberation and renouncing any form of positive action for Anarchisum, pacifisum is authoritarian.
im sry for cutting it short. but i must be going. i promise i will keep writing... PEACE AND LOVE..i wasn't kidding bout being a pscivist. if you are wondering y i became one.. jsut type me a messagge and i will explain. just be happy

 

Well, first, deathfly, this debate is about the merits - or lack thereof - of anarchy, NOT whether forms of government such as democracy are flawless or "better." There IS no ideal form of government, because human beings have flaws and will inevitably screw up even the best theoretical system with greed, hate, etc. So, no, no one needs to prove to you that democracy is good. It's a political theory, it can't be good or bad - just more or less effective in comparison to other forms of government.

However, what I haven't seen yet is any indication that anarchy is even really something that could be practiced on a grand scale. Society, in order to exist in the way we understand it, needs rules. It's true that these rules are often abused, but HOW could humans exist together without some generally accepted guidelines along which to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct? Morals vary so greatly between individuals that we need laws to unify us. Even small tribal societies have laws, taboos, etc. to keep things together. Humans, by nature, need guidelines of conduct, and it's our instinct to try and find points we agree on. This is especially true of large groups.

However, even if it were possible to believe that humans are essentially good and moral and have only been corrupted by the power structure - how would we function globally without governments to direct foreign policy? (I'll be the first to admit that sometimes governments do some stupid s***, but we still need them.) In this age, the only way to remove goverment and large corporations would be to revert to pockets of small villages capable of maintaining mini-governments in which the people could really take a direct role. This would destroy much of what is commonly perceived as our modern advancements.

I haven't seen it proven that anarchy is a practical political theory at all.

By the way, deathfly, could you try to work on the giant run-on sentences you seem to use all the time? ^^; They're VERY difficult to follow, especially with your spelling errors - and maybe I'm missing a critical part of your argument because of that.

 

O.K, I'm only a measly junior high school student, but even I have enough mental capacity to realize that anarchy is basically impossible.

First of all, deathfly, your first post was nothing but a bunch of useless facts that you probably got out of some encyclopedia under "History of Anarchy". Well that's all nice and good, but I don't really care who started the belief in anarchy, I'd rather know *why* they believe it.

In your second post you tried to explain your beliefs, but I had to read it at least three times in order to get anything out of it, and what I got didn't realy change my views at all. Let's say that, as of right now, you get what you want.

Poof! All forms of government are gone! There are absolutely no rules, and you're free to do whatever the heck you want! Now what's stopping you from picking up a gun and shooting someone in the head? Better yet, what's stopping someone from picking up a gun and shooting *you* in the head? People aren't all sugar and sweetness, look around at all the crime we have. SOME crime is caused because of government rebellions, I realize that. But a very small percentage of it is. Not all people are good at heart, despite what you may hear in fairytales. Most crime comes from people who want to destroy, who LIKE to see pain and suffering, or who maybe are just plain crazy. I'm sorry to inform you of this deathfly, but there ARE people in the world without a moral compass, government or not. For some people, evil is a part of their nature, and there's no way to correct it. And there are probably people who WANT to be like that, but have the brains to not lower themselves to that level since they'd rather keep out of death row. If you take away all forms of government, anybody with a slightly evil side could be villanous to their heart's content, and nobody's going to stop them. Think of all the robberies that'd be commited, anybody who wanted anything could just walk right in and take it, nobody would stop them except maybe violent store owners who now have the freedom to keep rifles hanging on their walls, ready to shoot anyone they please.

Aside from that, isn't a government NEEDED? Without a government, how would any decisions be made? If a country wanted to overtake us, who's stopping them from just walking right in and saying "I claim this country in the name of ____!" Without an organized government to take action, we'd be overtaken instantly. What kind of fight could ordinary citizens put up, advanced technology or not?

And even saying that the other countries DID decide to ignore us, what's stopping someone with absolutely no ethics from grabbing some followers and claiming complete control over America? Then all we'd have is a dictatorship. What do you suppose would happen if someone like Adolf Hitler decided to take control?

Not to mention that we'd be the only country with anarchy, I really don't think the entire world would say "Hey! The U.S is going to get itself destroyed! Let's follow in its footsteps!". It would be pretty impossible to totally isolate America and let it co-exist with the rest of the world.

And what about the economy? Who would control the flow of money into the U.S? Better yet, who would control anything? Will people be hired to make America's decisions, control the economy, and basically keep the country running?

Well guess what, if you do that, it isn't anarchy anymore!

So far I haven't heard one single argument that could possibly support anarchy being useful, or even possible for that matter. How do you plan to get the government to step down in the first place? Do you just plan to walk up and say "Hey! Anarchy is the best!" then expect them to agree and go on their merry little way?

Do you plan to use violence? In that case, are you any better then them? You're using force to get what you want! Isn't that exactly what you DON'T like them doing?

Try coming up with a more convincing (and grammatical) argument.

 

My brain hurts from reading that :glazed:

[edit] That was directed towards Deathfly, btw. [/edit]

- Ark

 

Translation of Death Fly's post:
Okay. I had five minutes to type anything and I couldn't let anything go by. Alright, that's one. Two; the thing in quotes at the top was the DEFINITION that I got from Yahoo. I had to go to work (I volunteer. Good for me) five minutes later so I had to type fast, but yeah, it's all good. I don't mind you bashing all I believe at all. *le sigh* But yeah...

Okay, anarchy is a way out of society and larger corporations. What I sent in the first post was a description of anarchy, not the entire thing. Anarchy is not based on one person's ideas, but on practical plans for the reorganization of society. You would think that Anarchy is a form of Marxism with violence or an extreme side of Marxism, but it is not necessarily violent. But democracy isn't the violence-free society, is it? Every few minutes a girl is raped, a person is shot, and money goes to a war for oil and land. Not to liberate the people of Iraq. If we were to liberate them and save them from Saddam, then what are we doing there?

No way of living has prove peaceful or bloodless yet, but at least Anarchy isn't going to call violence "Freedom" or war "Liberation" or industrialism "profit". They won't call for it. Monopolies are ruling our income and our profts for stuff we buy right back from them. We are slaves to it, but in Anarchy we could choose what is needed and what we want. The more we want, the less attention is put where it is needed. Look at Europe; there is a small country that hands out condoms in elementary school. When I remember which country, I will write it. Pot is legal and rape is down, sex is down and so is violence. Like all laws, if there were no laws, someone will be able to enjoy it for a bleak amount of time, then it will be as used as a party favor; only for special occasions (I think I spelled this wrong). Please tell me why democracy is good?

You're asking me why Anarchy is good, so I am speaking, but democracy had slavery for a long time, anti-German rallies that actually got all German workers and students in the United States kicked out of their jobs and education, people were killed. Bush let the September 11th attack succeed when he knew about it, though some people were peaceful. The actual people's minds were brainwashed with items, propaganda, and most of all the idea that the United States was helping them. (After this, it looks like a monkey started typing with its ***)

I'm sorry for cutting this short but I must be going. I promise I will keep writing. LOVE AND PEACE! (Okay, Vash). I wasn't kidding about being a Pacifist (I was hoping you were kidding about not being able to spell it). If you are wondering why I became one, just type me a message and I will explain. Just be happy.

~ ~ ~

Okay, now after all that, I think I deserve the right to ask...

Just what in the bejeezus were you smoking?! You in all honesty believe that Anarchy is truly the way to go? It may have worked in Europe but was Ted Bundy in Europe? Was Dahmer? The Columbine School Shooters? Berkowtiz, the Boston Strangler, Gein, Manson, McVeigh, The Zodiac Killer? Now, are you going to tell me that they have none of these just because they bastardized Anarchy and called it the same thing? They avoided all of these bad, bad people because of that? Hell, with Anarchy, what these men did would be ALLOWED. With Anarchy, whenever a girl is raped, it'll make us look worse because "Oh, well, TECHNICALLY, it's allowed". Everytime a person is shot, "Well.. it doesn't say he can't do it!".

Anarchy won't call violence freedom? Okay, let's look at this scenario. America adopts Anarchy. Someone goes on a killing spree. No law says they can't, thus, they are free to do it. Isn't that a bit more of a literal meaning to violence being freedom? And what would YOU suggest to do about Saddam in Iraq (or would have)... sit the SOB down and ask him how many lumps of sugar does he want in his tea?

Just because there are no laws, doesn't mean people won't get tired with it. Because someone will ALWAYS disapprove, and now that there are no laws, they can do whatever they want about a serial killer or a rapist, and this will be the game they seek now. You'll just make the game for this sick *******s more fun.

Democracy HAD slavery. Anarchy could ALWAYS have slavery. Someone doesn't like it? They kill the slave-owner. Or, better yet, the slave-owner kills them for trying to kill them. Then more people hunt down the slave-owner, he's shot dead, it's made into a TV movie which people watch and saw "Well, ****, if they just had laws and rules against that, it wouldn't've been a problem!". And of COURSE there were anti-German rallies. We are HUMAN. We generalize and stereotype, and that's what they did to the kinds of people who were on the other side of the world, mercilessly killing our brethren and our kin. What would YOU have done, invited them over for coffee and discuss the big baseball game? And I'm not even going to get INTO Bush purposely letting planes crash through ****ing buildings, killing countless innocents, just for a bull**** excuse to go to war. I don't like the guy, but I give him more credit than that. You know, just show me proof. Show me like, I don't know, a ****ing IRC log of you personally talking to Bush and him telling you that.. like:

GWBush69: like yeah
GWBush69: i jus liek let tehm plains crahs in 2 teh bildins cuz i ate tehm iraqis and arabs
GWBush69: n i jus want 2 go 2 war n all u no?

C'mon. Please, please show me. I'm dying here.

 

jezz.. alright.. hemmmm
http://war-times.org/ on the first page "Bush lies/ people die" is the name of the article... if you wish to go look really quickly... i HAVe to go.. EMERGENSY.. um friend suiside.. crap..