Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What is so wrong with anarchy?

Page 3 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,179

07 Dec 2012, 11:43 am

CSBurks wrote:
Most of the anarchist I know, myself included, do not want to initiate violence; that is why we are anarchists.
And you get the $100 dolar prize . :D


_________________
https://www.signsofaspergerssyndrome.com


MrXxx
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,760
Location: New England

07 Dec 2012, 11:51 am

CSBurks wrote:
Most of the anarchist I know, myself included, do not want to initiate violence;


It's the few that do want it that give pause, and why the rest of the world ain't gonna let it happen.


_________________
I'm not likely to be around much longer. As before when I first signed up here years ago, I'm finding that after a long hiatus, and after only a few days back on here, I'm spending way too much time here again already. So I'm requesting my account be locked, banned or whatever. It's just time. Until then, well, I dunno...


Last edited by MrXxx on 07 Dec 2012, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Dec 2012, 2:58 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUvNt6QJMfw[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

07 Dec 2012, 4:51 pm

Ok.

So your an anarchist.

Anarchy, by definition is lack of order or restraint.
Lack of order or restraint is violence.

I'm confused.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

08 Dec 2012, 1:04 am

The major definition I came across was their opposition to authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. This does not mean no authority whatsoever. It does mean, however, that all forms of authority /hierarchy should be justified and scrutinized. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on voluntary associations. Stateless, because states are run top-down and tend to be hierarchical/authoritative. Whether a linguistic ground chimp like us can ever attain such bliss, especially on a large scale, is questioable?



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

08 Dec 2012, 4:45 am

NAKnight wrote:
Ok.

So your an anarchist.

Anarchy, by definition is lack of order or restraint.
Lack of order or restraint is violence.

I'm confused.

Best Regards,

Jake


Not a lack of order, but rather, spontaneous order. As opposed to an 'order' imposed upon everyone else by a band of thieves. Markets are a form of spontaneous order, if there were no spontaneous order, there could be no markets.

For more information on anarchy, I recommended looking over Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy.

Link to Chaos Theory



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2012, 6:54 am

NAKnight wrote:
Ok.]



Anarchy, by definition is lack of order or restraint.
Lack of order or restraint is violence.



Anarchy means no central state to make or enforce laws. It does not mean like of rules, protocols and customs to regulate behavior. In an anarchist society is is NOT the case that "anything goes". The people of the society will form their own associations and militias to protect their property and lives from aggression.

Mankind has lived without a state for over 95 percent of the time it has existed as a species. States came into being when humans give up hunting and gathering and had to depend on herds of cattle and food grown from from plants sowed by humans. Land became property and property had to be defended. That is the origin of governments.

ruveyn



BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

09 Dec 2012, 11:25 pm

If you also appreciate anarchy, you need to give up any services provided by others:

roads
water
sewer
electricity
food you didn't grow/hunt/butcher
police
fire dept
hospitals

... get the idea yet? Without organized effort, none of these things can happen. Police and Laws exist to keep as*holes from doing whatever they want at the terrible expense of others.



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

10 Dec 2012, 12:09 am

Like I said before,

Anarchy, by definition is without restraint or order.
You portray Anarchy as if it's something Utopian.
I'm not really following you.


Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

10 Dec 2012, 6:37 am

BlueMax wrote:
If you also appreciate anarchy, you need to give up any services provided by others:

roads
water
sewer
electricity
food you didn't grow/hunt/butcher
police
fire dept
hospitals

... get the idea yet? Without organized effort, none of these things can happen. Police and Laws exist to keep as*holes from doing whatever they want at the terrible expense of others.


Roads -- could easily be built by private organisations; if they can build cars and parking lots, they can build roads. Especially since there would be a demand for such things.

water -- could also be provided by a free market

sewer -- could also be maintained by a free market

electricity -- in some cases is already provided by private organisations

food -- already provided by private organisations; why you even listed that, I don't know.

police -- private security

fire dept -- used to be privatised in earlier history

Hospitals -- pretty sure some of those are already private



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Dec 2012, 6:40 am

CSBurks wrote:

Hospitals -- pretty sure some of those are already private


In the U.S. most hospitals are private but they are highly regulated. Which keeps the owners happy. It stifles competition, privatizes profits and socializes losses. You rarely see a hospital close if it goes belly up. It is usually merge with another hospital or hospital organization.

ruveyn



monkees4va
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 379
Location: Scotland

13 Dec 2012, 7:52 am

A state of anarchy is returning to the state of nature, with no common laws or social contracts. This means whoever is the strongest, fittest and smartest will take what they need from the weakest, and they will suffer. No one will have true freedom because you'll be terrified for yourself and your family. If anarchy was in place I could simply walk in, shoot you all, take what I need and face no consequences. I do not fancy everything becoming commercialised (as was proposed above if public functions stoppped) because there would be no regulations on prices. No laws in workplaces, so minimum wages would be abolished as well as equality laws etc. No police, so no order. A state of rape, murder, theft and intolerence would arise. Simple things such as garbage collection would cease. No need to provide fuel for everyone else, so electricity, gas and oil would stop. Manufactuers wouldn't be able to provide enough to people who could afford it, as money would become almost obsolete due to no economic controls. There would be no drive to produce or build, because someone who is stronger than you or has more allies will just take it from you. This is a state of true anarchy. Under a social contract we give up our rights to murder people as we please etc so we gain protection from people doing the same to us. Only under restraints can an individual be truely free to plan their life in the way modern society allows for.
If you want to be an anarchist, a true one that recognises no governmental system, I could walk in, mutilate you, steal all your belongings and there's not a damn thing you could do about it. You couldn't phone the police (they don't exist), couldn't prosecute me under laws (they don't exist) and couldn't lock me up in prisons (they also don't exist). What you could do is build up a posse or gang to try and hunt me down, and hope I don't have a bigger and stronger one. It's a perpetual state of fear that I don't want to live in.
If you propose any system in a society to end this, it is the formation of a government. Then anarchy would no longer exist.


_________________
I'm a girl people!
"Do or do not; there is no try." -Yoda
Your Aspie score: 157 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 65 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Dec 2012, 12:45 pm

monkees4va wrote:
A state of anarchy is returning to the state of nature, with no common laws or social contracts. This means whoever is the strongest, fittest and smartest will take what they need from the weakest, and they will suffer. No one will have true freedom because you'll be terrified for yourself and your family. If anarchy was in place I could simply walk in, shoot you all, take what I need and face no consequences. I do not fancy everything becoming commercialised (as was proposed above if public functions stoppped) because there would be no regulations on prices. No laws in workplaces, so minimum wages would be abolished as well as equality laws etc. No police, so no order. A state of rape, murder, theft and intolerence would arise. Simple things such as garbage collection would cease. No need to provide fuel for everyone else, so electricity, gas and oil would stop. Manufactuers wouldn't be able to provide enough to people who could afford it, as money would become almost obsolete due to no economic controls. There would be no drive to produce or build, because someone who is stronger than you or has more allies will just take it from you. This is a state of true anarchy. Under a social contract we give up our rights to murder people as we please etc so we gain protection from people doing the same to us. Only under restraints can an individual be truely free to plan their life in the way modern society allows for.
If you want to be an anarchist, a true one that recognises no governmental system, I could walk in, mutilate you, steal all your belongings and there's not a damn thing you could do about it. You couldn't phone the police (they don't exist), couldn't prosecute me under laws (they don't exist) and couldn't lock me up in prisons (they also don't exist). What you could do is build up a posse or gang to try and hunt me down, and hope I don't have a bigger and stronger one. It's a perpetual state of fear that I don't want to live in.
If you propose any system in a society to end this, it is the formation of a government. Then anarchy would no longer exist.


Read what Thomas Hobbes had to say about the State of Nature. In that State the life of Man is nasty, brutish and short.

People do not have government because the love governments. They have governments because they hate social chaos and uncertainty which are the children of Anarchy.

ruveyn



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

13 Dec 2012, 5:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:
monkees4va wrote:
A state of anarchy is returning to the state of nature, with no common laws or social contracts. This means whoever is the strongest, fittest and smartest will take what they need from the weakest, and they will suffer. No one will have true freedom because you'll be terrified for yourself and your family. If anarchy was in place I could simply walk in, shoot you all, take what I need and face no consequences. I do not fancy everything becoming commercialised (as was proposed above if public functions stoppped) because there would be no regulations on prices. No laws in workplaces, so minimum wages would be abolished as well as equality laws etc. No police, so no order. A state of rape, murder, theft and intolerence would arise. Simple things such as garbage collection would cease. No need to provide fuel for everyone else, so electricity, gas and oil would stop. Manufactuers wouldn't be able to provide enough to people who could afford it, as money would become almost obsolete due to no economic controls. There would be no drive to produce or build, because someone who is stronger than you or has more allies will just take it from you. This is a state of true anarchy. Under a social contract we give up our rights to murder people as we please etc so we gain protection from people doing the same to us. Only under restraints can an individual be truely free to plan their life in the way modern society allows for.
If you want to be an anarchist, a true one that recognises no governmental system, I could walk in, mutilate you, steal all your belongings and there's not a damn thing you could do about it. You couldn't phone the police (they don't exist), couldn't prosecute me under laws (they don't exist) and couldn't lock me up in prisons (they also don't exist). What you could do is build up a posse or gang to try and hunt me down, and hope I don't have a bigger and stronger one. It's a perpetual state of fear that I don't want to live in.
If you propose any system in a society to end this, it is the formation of a government. Then anarchy would no longer exist.


Read what Thomas Hobbes had to say about the State of Nature. In that State the life of Man is nasty, brutish and short.

People do not have government because the love governments. They have governments because they hate social chaos and uncertainty which are the children of Anarchy.

ruveyn


People do not have government because the love governments. They have governments because they hate social chaos and uncertainty which are the children of Anarchy.

Case in Point.

Best Regards,

Jake


_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

13 Dec 2012, 8:59 pm

Anarchy is not the absence of order it is the absence of state.

CSBurks wrote:
Roads -- could easily be built by private organisations; if they can build cars and parking lots, they can build roads. Especially since there would be a demand for such things.

water -- could also be provided by a free market

sewer -- could also be maintained by a free market

electricity -- in some cases is already provided by private organisations

food -- already provided by private organisations; why you even listed that, I don't know.

police -- private security

fire dept -- used to be privatised in earlier history

Hospitals -- pretty sure some of those are already private

There is no private enterprise and property in an anarchy. Private property requires large monopolies of violence (states). And yes, private security agencys are states. You can only have personal property in anarchy. Public services would be handled by cooperative enterprise.