Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:48 pmAgorya wrote:And communism works off the assumption that men can pick government, but cannot pick where to shop or work. It's absurd.
False dichotomy.
False dichotomy.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Anarchism
Page 7 of 10
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:48 pmFalse dichotomy.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:52 pmNo, it means without hierarchy. Only a fool would propose that we could have a functioning society without government.Agorya wrote:Anarchy doesn't mean without hierarchy, it means without governance, and is applied to the individual and not the collective.
It does no such thingAnd communism works off the assumption that men can pick government, but cannot pick where to shop or work. It's absurd.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:52 pmIkania wrote:For Anarchism to work, you need to have a genuinely healthy and content society.
I've always said to myself that Anarchism could work if people could be trusted to govern themselves. But the truth is, they can't be trusted. There are wackos out there that need containment. If you have no police force to stop murders or asylums to keep these people, everyone is in danger. People need to be regulated, because if you don't tell them they can't do something, they'll do it.
"Oh, well there isn't a law against it, so it must be legal." That's the problem. Sure, there would be some people who'd be fine- even better off- with Anarchism. But if you include the psychopaths and murderers and rapists, you get complete chaos.
So no, I don't think Anarchy is good.
Anarchism is not without law, it is without hierarchy. Laws would be in place but they would be put in place by people on equal footing with equal say.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:53 pmOstroeuropa wrote:Vareiln wrote:Democracy and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive, and indeed, most forms of anarchy feature democratic governance. However, the vast majority of democratic societies existing today have social hierarchies, and thus they cannot be classified as anarchic in any way.
But the hierarchies are voluntary.
The same as an anarcho-capitalist system.
Hierarchies aren't voluntary in those models.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:55 pmPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:56 pmOstroeuropa wrote:Vareiln wrote:Democracy and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive, and indeed, most forms of anarchy feature democratic governance. However, the vast majority of democratic societies existing today have social hierarchies, and thus they cannot be classified as anarchic in any way.
But the hierarchies are voluntary.
The same as an anarcho-capitalist system.
Anarcho-capitalism does not make being poor voluntary.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:00 pmNo, it means without hierarchy. Only a fool would propose that we could have a functioning society without government.
Hierarchal organization that is voluntarily brought upon by the individual's consent to participate it in, as hierarchy is natural and immutable part of human tribal structure since prehistory. To erase hierarchy from the equation would create a paradox.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:03 pmNo, it isn't. Throughout all of recorded history we have knowledge of the existence of societies without hierarchies.Agorya wrote:Hierarchal organization that is voluntarily brought upon by the individual's consent to participate it in, as hierarchy is natural and immutable part of human tribal structure since prehistory. To erase hierarchy from the equation would create a paradox.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:20 pmAgorya wrote:No, it means without hierarchy. Only a fool would propose that we could have a functioning society without government.
Hierarchal organization that is voluntarily brought upon by the individual's consent to participate it in, as hierarchy is natural and immutable part of human tribal structure since prehistory. To erase hierarchy from the equation would create a paradox.
No, that's just the assumption. You don't need hierarchy in a society any more than you need hierarchy in a romantic relationship.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:38 pmThe Parkus Empire wrote:Agorya wrote:
Hierarchal organization that is voluntarily brought upon by the individual's consent to participate it in, as hierarchy is natural and immutable part of human tribal structure since prehistory. To erase hierarchy from the equation would create a paradox.
No, that's just the assumption. You don't need hierarchy in a society any more than you need hierarchy in a romantic relationship.
No, it isn't. Hierarchies form naturally when the person who has the most influence uses his influence to compel others. People naturally submit to a higher authority, and once that happens the authority (illegitimately) seals his authority through law. The purpose of anarchy then would be to remove this authority that is enforced by law.
There is a lot of psychological tests done on this, if you want me to bring it up.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:39 pmAgorya wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:No, that's just the assumption. You don't need hierarchy in a society any more than you need hierarchy in a romantic relationship.
No, it isn't. Hierarchies form naturally when the person who has the most influence uses his influence to compel others. People naturally submit to a higher authority, and once that happens the authority (illegitimately) seals his authority through law. The purpose of anarchy then would be to remove this authority that is enforced by law.
There is a lot of psychological tests done on this, if you want me to bring it up.
So they're necessary for a romantic relationship?
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:40 pmAnarchism is stupid.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:41 pmFrisivisia wrote:Anarchism is stupid.
Such deep insight man
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:41 pmFrisivisia wrote:Anarchism is stupid.
Why don't you actually become an anarchist before you start judging it?
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:43 pmPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:44 pmThe Parkus Empire wrote:Agorya wrote:
No, it isn't. Hierarchies form naturally when the person who has the most influence uses his influence to compel others. People naturally submit to a higher authority, and once that happens the authority (illegitimately) seals his authority through law. The purpose of anarchy then would be to remove this authority that is enforced by law.
There is a lot of psychological tests done on this, if you want me to bring it up.
So they're necessary for a romantic relationship?
No. No hierarchy will be formed as long as the female won't allow the male to have any influence over here, whether physical or mental. I will say that there might be a natural inclination on the males part, although that's just me being sexist.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:46 pmYou know, Fris, I respect you. I really do. I consider you one of the better members of this forum. Someone who's usually very well-informed, rational, etc.
However, in this post, you're being rather irrational(Unless you're just using satire and I'm sucking with my reading comprehension right now). You know that teenage angst isn't anarchy.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:47 pmVareiln wrote:Frisivisia wrote:*becomes anarchist*
Why do I have acne and a strong urge to read Neitzsche and make bombs? This is horrible!
*no longer anarchist*
You know, Fris, I respect you. I really do. I consider you one of the better members of this forum. Someone who's usually very well-informed, rational, etc.
However, in this post, you're being rather irrational(Unless you're just using satire and I'm sucking with my reading comprehension right now). You know that teenage angst isn't anarchy.
I'm not being serious. Whenever I'm not being rational and well-informed, I'm not being serious.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:48 pmFrisivisia wrote:Vareiln wrote:You know, Fris, I respect you. I really do. I consider you one of the better members of this forum. Someone who's usually very well-informed, rational, etc.
However, in this post, you're being rather irrational(Unless you're just using satire and I'm sucking with my reading comprehension right now). You know that teenage angst isn't anarchy.
I'm not being serious. Whenever I'm not being rational and well-informed, I'm not being serious.
Yup, my reading comprehension sucks.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:49 pmVareiln wrote:Frisivisia wrote:*becomes anarchist*
Why do I have acne and a strong urge to read Neitzsche and make bombs? This is horrible!
*no longer anarchist*
You know, Fris, I respect you. I really do. I consider you one of the better members of this forum. Someone who's usually very well-informed, rational, etc.
However, in this post, you're being rather irrational(Unless you're just using satire and I'm sucking with my reading comprehension right now). You know that teenage angst isn't anarchy.
Yeah, neo Nazism could be described as teenage angst too and it is anything but anarchic.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:50 pmAgorya wrote:Vareiln wrote:You know, Fris, I respect you. I really do. I consider you one of the better members of this forum. Someone who's usually very well-informed, rational, etc.
However, in this post, you're being rather irrational(Unless you're just using satire and I'm sucking with my reading comprehension right now). You know that teenage angst isn't anarchy.
Yeah, neo Nazism could be described as teenage angst too and it is anything but anarchic.
In all fairness, anarcho-capitalism is one of the more horrible systems I can think of and anarcho-communism is a pipe dream and probably fairly unworkable to boot.
Social Democracy, awaaaaaaaaaaay!
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:51 pmIf you adhere to Nietzsche, you cannot read him. These two are virtually mutually exclusive on the internet.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:52 pmFrisivisia wrote:Agorya wrote:
Yeah, neo Nazism could be described as teenage angst too and it is anything but anarchic.
In all fairness, anarcho-capitalism is one of the more horrible systems I can think of and anarcho-communism is a pipe dream and probably fairly unworkable to boot.
Social Democracy, awaaaaaaaaaaay!
There's a commune my friend is at right now. It works pretty well, apparently, though I haven't spoken to her much recently.
Of course, that's a small-scale eco-anarcho-commune, so make of that what you will.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:52 pmI don't think an Anarchist society would be any meaningfully different than a statist one.
Authority and coercion will still exist. Even when there is no state, it will exist in all but name. People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups. That's why history played out like it did.
Authority and coercion will still exist. Even when there is no state, it will exist in all but name. People are naturally coercive, submit to authority, and organize in groups. That's why history played out like it did.
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 7:52 pm