Anarchism

[Ucropi]

Don't do that! He'll show how amazing anarchy was for 99.8% of human history when the biggest problems were living to the age of 15, not getting eaten by wild animals and hunting enough wild animals to eat. [...]

The human lifespan was actually much higher than 15.
http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

[Conscentia]

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

I've made an edit.

[Arkolon]

The human lifespan was actually much higher than 15.
http://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

How would it change, though? It's not like modern medicine came around with statism, is it?

[Ucropi]

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

I've made an edit.

30 years old?! His argument is completely destroyed! No way he was exaggerating to make fun of anarchy.

[Conscentia]

I've made an edit.

30 years old?! His argument is completely destroyed! No way he was exaggerating to make fun of anarchy.

[Ucropi]

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

How would it change, though? It's not like modern medicine came around with statism, is it?

I'm not replying to your posts anymore as you clearly have no idea what's going on.

[Arkolon]

30 years old?! His argument is completely destroyed! No way he was exaggerating to make fun of anarchy.

My ignore list has steadily grown the more people post in this thread..

[Jumalariik]

My ignore list has steadily grown the more people post in this thread..

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

[Zeouria]

"Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5][6] and communist anarchism[7][8]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[9] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[10][11] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[12][13]
- Wikipedia, Anarchist Communism

I hold Communism (Anarchist Communism, that is) to be far more preferable than Marxist-Leninism. Leninism is riddled with contradictions and hypocrisy. How could one expect an inner party to not corrupt and stay completely true to its principles? How can one expect something that was created in the time of scarcity, where technology was so limited a man had to transport a letter by horse, foot, or train, to apply to modern day post-scarcity, modern day hatred for Authoritarianism, modern day technology and interdependancy? How can one expect a state to work against itself, to wither away? Governments obviously do not work in such a fashion. They work for the betterment of themselves; of the state.

Discussion Topics:
1) Is what is said above, true?

2) Is Marxist-Leninism more preferable in the modern day?

[Arkolon]

My ignore list has steadily grown the more people post in this thread..

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

Well, err, I can't see a relation between the two, honestly, either in the sense that imperialism implies nationalism or that anti-imperialism implies nationalism, so I really don't know.

[Conscentia]

My ignore list has steadily grown the more people post in this thread..

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

The belief is wrong.
Imperial powers were all about nationalism - favouring their own nations, of-coarse.
Internationalists generally aren't fans of nationalism or imperialism.

[United Dependencies]

I think the current states of Libya, Syria, and parts of Iraq should show why anarchism isn't a worthwhile political ideology.

>>/anocracy/

Now that I think about it, this doesn't actually disprove the point I was making.

The Anarchist tells us that if we were to rid ourselves of our central government that we would be more free and that we would be able to maintain our same standard of living (or something near it) without the same exploitation that occurs under our current system. Yet I can think of no recent example that hasn't ended up in one of three ways: 1) the former state in question is now a land ruled by warlords 2) a new central government has been formed (possible more powerful and more dictatorial than before) and 3) the area in question has now been taken over by another state.

So, while the modern examples may not directly disprove anarchy, they still contribute greatly to the notion anarchism can not increase (or even maintain) the utility of the people within that area.

[United Dependencies]

2000 years ago the Roman Empire was around we're talking pre-civilization sorry.

How would it change, though? It's not like modern medicine came around with statism, is it?

Public universities and academies of medicine

[Conscentia]

The principle of justice in acquisition is the Lockean proviso, which I already linked you to.

There is a right to property, yes. If we're using Lindsay's definition of rights (that which is inalienable; cannot be transferred, given, or taken away, and is not granted by a state), how isn't there a natural right to property? And why do you make a magical exception in your logic when it comes to common property?

The argument can be pejoratively perceived in such a light, but yes, to an extent.

Well I don't agree with the proviso.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with this: private property requires action (Acquisition and enforcement of exclusion). By the reasoning you present, that would align it with the positive liberties thus excluding it from the category of natural rights.
Common property is common to all. It does not have to acquired and no-one is excluded hence there is no exclusion to enforce. Hence no action is taken. By the reasoning presented by you, that would make it a natural right.

[Jumalariik]

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

The belief is wrong.
Imperial powers were all about nationalism - favouring their own nations, of-coarse.
Internationalists generally aren't fans of nationalism or imperialism.

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

Well, err, I can't see a relation between the two, honestly, either in the sense that imperialism implies nationalism or that anti-imperialism implies nationalism, so I really don't know.

I will explain more in depth my reasoning:

Nationalism is the affinity to one's own nation (wikepidia)
affinity to one's nation thus implies 3 things:
1. The belief in the legitimacy of your nation
Which implies
2. The belief in nations
which implies
3. Thus, the belief in the legitimacy of other nations as an extension.

Many people involved in anti imperialist struggles have been nationalists, fighting for the freedom of their nation.

True nationalists also would logically believe that other nations exist and also deserve to exist, assuming that they have an ounce of reasoning skills and a moral compass.

Ho Chi Minh, James Connolly, John Maclean etc. are examples of nationalists who were also anti-imperialists in their days. In fact, I would be interested in knowing of anybody who fought in actual national liberation struggles who were not nationalists.

A nationalist who wishes to crush other nations is a hypocrite and to end the contradiction in his/her thought has to either stop being a nationalist or stop being an imperialist.

Furthermore, if a nation invades, it is made up of more than one nation, thus it is no longer a nation-proper.
I am interested in replies and will be putting up a new thread to maybe continue discussion on the topic.

[Jumalariik]

What do you think about my belief that nationalism implies anti-imperialism and anti imperialism implies nationalism?

The belief is wrong.
Imperial powers were all about nationalism - favouring their own nations, of-coarse.
Internationalists generally aren't fans of nationalism or imperialism.

Since when did internationalists engage in anti-imperialist struggles first hand?

[Maqo]

Don't do that! He'll show how amazing anarchy was for 99.8% of human history when the biggest problems were living to the age of 15, not getting eaten by wild animals and hunting enough wild animals to eat. [...]

The human lifespan was actually much higher than 15.
http://www.stoneagedoc.com/Short_lived_Stone_Age.htm

I thought it was pretty clear I was making a hyperbolic statement. I also didn't research how high 'make sure the fire doesn't go out' came on their list either. Appeals to how homo erectus lived 400000 years ago are about as relevant as how monkeys or bears or ants live.

[Conscentia]

The belief is wrong.
Imperial powers were all about nationalism - favouring their own nations, of-coarse.
Internationalists generally aren't fans of nationalism or imperialism.

Since when did internationalists engage in anti-imperialist struggles first hand?

Irrelevant.

[Jumalariik]

Since when did internationalists engage in anti-imperialist struggles first hand?

Irrelevant.

No it's not.
Internationalists have historically been useless in anti-imperialism from what I understand, people can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jumalariik]

I made a topic to continue the nationalism debate:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=20&t=306605

[Conscentia]

Irrelevant.

No it's not.
Internationalists have historically been useless in anti-imperialism from what I understand, people can correct me if I'm wrong.

Lenin was quite effective. Though Stalin undid all of the work of the revolution and turned Russia back into an empire.

[Arkolon]

The principle of justice in acquisition is the Lockean proviso, which I already linked you to.

There is a right to property, yes. If we're using Lindsay's definition of rights (that which is inalienable; cannot be transferred, given, or taken away, and is not granted by a state), how isn't there a natural right to property? And why do you make a magical exception in your logic when it comes to common property?

The argument can be pejoratively perceived in such a light, but yes, to an extent.

Well I don't agree with the proviso.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with this: private property requires action (Acquisition and enforcement of exclusion). By the reasoning you present, that would align it with the positive liberties thus excluding it from the category of natural rights.
Common property is common to all. It does not have to acquired and no-one is excluded hence there is no exclusion to enforce. Hence no action is taken. By the reasoning presented by you, that would make it a natural right.

And why not?

The right to property is a natural right because it is, well, firstly legitimised by the proviso, and secondly fits Lindsay's definition of what rights are. The right to accumulate property cannot be taken away from you, the same way it cannot be given to you, because the right just is. It can be violated, however, but not granted. Could you give me an example to which common property you were referring to?

[Arkolon]

>>/anocracy/

Now that I think about it, this doesn't actually disprove the point I was making.

The Anarchist tells us that if we were to rid ourselves of our central government that we would be more free and that we would be able to maintain our same standard of living (or something near it) without the same exploitation that occurs under our current system. Yet I can think of no recent example that hasn't ended up in one of three ways: 1) the former state in question is now a land ruled by warlords 2) a new central government has been formed (possible more powerful and more dictatorial than before) and 3) the area in question has now been taken over by another state.

So, while the modern examples may not directly disprove anarchy, they still contribute greatly to the notion anarchism can not increase (or even maintain) the utility of the people within that area.

Anarchist schools of thought are not based on consequentialist arguments.

[Jumalariik]

No it's not.
Internationalists have historically been useless in anti-imperialism from what I understand, people can correct me if I'm wrong.

Lenin was quite effective. Though Stalin undid all of the work of the revolution and turned Russia back into an empire.

That was not an anti-imperialist struggle.

Since when was Lenin against foreign invasions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_W ... dependence
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/balticmiracle.htm

[Arkolon]

How would it change, though? It's not like modern medicine came around with statism, is it?

Public universities and academies of medicine

And these things can't be provided by private individuals, and not the state?