Anarchy vs Governance - Merged Topics

[Threlizdun]

People support communism because they support ultimate equality and freedom. Communism cannot exist without anarchy, as it is defined as stateless. Anarchy can exist without communism, though I don't really believe you are completely free when others are higher up on the social ladder than you are.

[Euronion]

there is a reason it is called "Anarchism: it comes from he word Anarchy which means "confusion; chaos; disorder"
aybe in a perfect world where no one broke the rules and everyone bottled up their emotions but in the reak world you always have cycopaths, nurderers, rapists, mentally ill(who do not fit in the above catagories, my point is their would need to be someone to take care of them) what would happen if an old person had a heart-attack, who would she get medical help from, there would be no hospitals because hospitals need to fall under the law in issues of things like medical malpractice, if there is no government there are no laws or fair legal courts to oversee these disputes, therefore big hospitals capable of treating hundreds would be no more, that means less money to the owner, less money means less supplies, and less supplies means more people die

[Conserative Morality]

People support communism because they support ultimate equality and freedom. Communism cannot exist without anarchy, as it is defined as stateless. Anarchy can exist without communism, though I don't really believe you are completely free when others are higher up on the social ladder than you are.

Why is freedom considered automatically to be a good thing?

[Mediterreania]

People support communism because they support ultimate equality and freedom. Communism cannot exist without anarchy, as it is defined as stateless. Anarchy can exist without communism, though I don't really believe you are completely free when others are higher up on the social ladder than you are.

Why is freedom considered automatically to be a good thing?

Really depends on what freedom's you're talking about.

On one hand, there's freedom: the ability to do something without outside coercion or force.

On the other hand, there's "Freedom™": red-white-n-blue anti-commie, Christian apple pie baseball capitalizm white America.

[Conserative Morality]

Really depends on what freedom's you're talking about.

On one hand, there's freedom: the ability to do something without outside coercion or force.

On the other hand, there's "Freedom™": red-white-n-blue anti-commie, Christian apple pie baseball capitalizm white America.

Either. Or. I don't understand why people think it's automatically a good thing.

[Kubra]

Why is freedom considered automatically to be a good thing?

Really depends on what freedom's you're talking about.

On one hand, there's freedom: the ability to do something without outside coercion or force.

On the other hand, there's "Freedom™": red-white-n-blue anti-commie, Christian apple pie baseball capitalizm white America.

I'd say the question still stands.

[Mediterreania]

Really depends on what freedom's you're talking about.

On one hand, there's freedom: the ability to do something without outside coercion or force.

On the other hand, there's "Freedom™": red-white-n-blue anti-commie, Christian apple pie baseball capitalizm white America.

I'd say the question still stands.

I wold say that the problem is freedom becoming a buzzword - does one really support freedom, or do they support just the opposite.

[Conserative Morality]

I wold say that the problem is freedom becoming a buzzword - does one really support freedom, or do they support just the opposite.

I still have yet to hear an explanation for either.

[Kitzbuhel]

Anarcho-Capitalism FTW.

[Natapoc]

Why do people support communism?

Because Communism is a lie that lores people in. The greedy control the gulible...

Because Capitalism is a lie that lores people in. The greedy control the gulible...

[Mediterreania]

I wold say that the problem is freedom becoming a buzzword - does one really support freedom, or do they support just the opposite.

I still have yet to hear an explanation for either.

People support the former because a human's integrity is the one thing that no one else can touch, and they would not want to be coerced into giving that away.

People support the latter because they're gullible rednecks.

[Conserative Morality]

People support the former because a human's integrity is the one thing that no one else can touch, and they would not want to be coerced into giving that away.

I disagree. A human's integrity is one of the most oft-violated things in the history of mankind. Furthermore, I support the removal of certain amounts of freedom from myself. I support coercion against myself.

[Mediterreania]

People support the former because a human's integrity is the one thing that no one else can touch, and they would not want to be coerced into giving that away.

I disagree. A human's integrity is one of the most oft-violated things in the history of mankind. Furthermore, I support the removal of certain amounts of freedom from myself. I support coercion against myself.

If you voluntary ASK to be coerced, is it coercion?

*head asplodes*

[Threlizdun]

People support the former because a human's integrity is the one thing that no one else can touch, and they would not want to be coerced into giving that away.

I disagree. A human's integrity is one of the most oft-violated things in the history of mankind. Furthermore, I support the removal of certain amounts of freedom from myself. I support coercion against myself.

Well, that's where we disagree. Obviously neither of us can change the other's mind if we have two complete opposite views on freedom.

[Conserative Morality]

If you voluntary ASK to be coerced, is it coercion?

*head asplodes*

Example, if an odd one: I give a man a baton and tell him to beat me senseless if I take that piece of chocolate cake. He agrees. The threat of coercion keeps me away from the chocolate cake.

[Mediterreania]

If you voluntary ASK to be coerced, is it coercion?

*head asplodes*

Example, if an odd one: I give a man a baton and tell him to beat me senseless if I take that piece of chocolate cake. He agrees. The threat of coercion keeps me away from the chocolate cake.

So basically, the state is for people lacking self-restraint? And according to your worldview, EVERYONE lacks self-restraint?

Interesting.

[Voerdeland]

In a community founded by anarchists? Yes
If any actual state was abolished and everyone had to live in anarchy? No

[Terra Agora]

I'm sorry Terra Agora, but no. There are several types of anarchism. I will call all of them that fit into the anarchist tradition anarchism.

The problem is that very recently anti government capitalists have started calling themselves anarchists. This was very troubling to everyone who regarded him or herself as an anarchist at the time.

It would be like if suddenly communists started calling themselves freemarketarians. Would you think that was a bit dishonest?

And when questioned the communist would say: But everything is free! We deserve to use the free market term to describe our ideal economy too!
Who are you to call us non free marketers?
Why do you get to define what free market is (of course ignoring that free market, like anarchism is an established term with specific meanings)

Market anarchism came in the 18th century.
AnCap came closer to our time but have still has much in common with Market Anarchism.
AnCap besides having similarities with Market Anarchism sprang out of the Individualist Anarchism that was prominent in America.
It has even been widely claimed that AnCap is not capitalism because capitalism has historically meant what we call now "state capitalism".
Brad Spangler (im not sure if you familiar with him) has even claimed that "Market anarchism is stigmergic socialism" though im not sure if he is talking about AnCap or Market Anarchism.

EDIT: I found a quote

"It is my contention," writes Spangler, "that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. Rather than depending upon the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression."

http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473

[Conserative Morality]

So basically, the state is for people lacking self-restraint? And according to your worldview, EVERYONE lacks self-restraint?

Interesting.

Everyone lacks self-restraint on some level. And everyone is short sighted on some level. Including myself. It's always easier to see things clearly when it's not YOUR interests at stake.

[Kubra]

If you voluntary ASK to be coerced, is it coercion?

*head asplodes*

Example, if an odd one: I give a man a baton and tell him to beat me senseless if I take that piece of chocolate cake. He agrees. The threat of coercion keeps me away from the chocolate cake.

But why would you want to be kept away from the chocolate cake in the first place?

[Conserative Morality]

But why would you want to be kept away from the chocolate cake in the first place?

Good question. I need to put on a few pounds. But let's assume that I was trying to lose weight, or perhaps I have diabetes.

[ZombieRothbard]

These threads inevitably end with people who do not understand what anarchists advocate, straw manning the position so erroneously that it angers me. You would think after hundreds of these threads, people would begin to figure out that anarchists don't oppose leadership, organizational structures, voluntary co-operation, and some do not oppose government.

[Terra Agora]

These threads inevitably end with people who do not understand what anarchists advocate, straw manning the position so erroneously that it angers me. You would think after hundreds of these threads, people would begin to figure out that anarchists don't oppose leadership, organizational structures, voluntary co-operation, and some do not oppose government.

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

[Kubra]

But why would you want to be kept away from the chocolate cake in the first place?

Good question. I need to put on a few pounds. But let's assume that I was trying to lose weight, or perhaps I have diabetes.

Aw, it's yer own fault if you become fat or die some sort of sugar explosion (I'm pretty sure diabetics explode when they eat sugar). Jeez, ya don't need the guy with the baton to tell you dun fucked up!

[Conserative Morality]

Aw, it's yer own fault if you become fat or die some sort of sugar explosion (I'm pretty sure diabetics explode when they eat sugar).

But if I don't become fat or die in '[S]ome sort of sugar explosion', wouldn't I be happier? After all, it was a pretty base urge to eat that cake and I'd hate myself for doing so afterwords. The freedom to do so made me fat and unhappy.

Dammit, now I want cake and there's none in the house. I guess I'll settle for Swiss Rolls.

Jeez, ya don't need the guy with the baton to tell you dun fucked up!

But I do need him to stop me if I don't want to get fat or die.