NationStates

Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

This is why I'm open to compromise with even social democrats and center-left liberals despite my unwavering optimism.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

I’ve become a lot more skeptical of governments and states and whether or not we actually need them, but I do think some anarchists and libertarians seem rather optimistic and idealistic to me, though i’m open to anarchism as an ideology.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Honestly tho, Anarchism is just a rational conclusion of the train of thought that started with The Age of Enlightenment: "The State is a Necessary Evil"
A necessary evil is still an evil after all.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

should revive anarchical dictatorship, as ancient roman republic

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Most ideologies that rely on the good nature of man are.

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Most ideologies that rely on the good nature of man are.

My ideology relies on Bread Santa's (and my) understanding of the scientific principles of biological mutualism as related to the human condition :^3

Torrocca wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Most ideologies that rely on the good nature of man are.

My ideology relies on Bread Santa's (and my) understanding of the scientific principles of biological mutualism as related to the human condition :^3

Ok look, I'm as anarchic as the next guy but please don't mistake 19th century Scientific Romanticism with actual science.

Frievolk wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
My ideology relies on Bread Santa's (and my) understanding of the scientific principles of biological mutualism as related to the human condition :^3

Ok look, I'm as anarchic as the next guy but please don't mistake 19th century Scientific Romanticism with actual science.

b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

Torrocca wrote:

Frievolk wrote:Ok look, I'm as anarchic as the next guy but please don't mistake 19th century Scientific Romanticism with actual science.

b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

Yeah, within the tribe xd

Free Arabian Nation wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

Yeah, within the tribe xd

It literally was written to refute social Darwinism and Scientific Romanticism in regards to the human condition while also ascribing mutualism to humanity's success ffs

Torrocca wrote:

Frievolk wrote:Ok look, I'm as anarchic as the next guy but please don't mistake 19th century Scientific Romanticism with actual science.

b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

I'm not openly denying that. I'm suggesting that using Kropotkin's contemporaries as evidence isn't really that brilliant an idea lol

Torrocca wrote:

Frievolk wrote:Ok look, I'm as anarchic as the next guy but please don't mistake 19th century Scientific Romanticism with actual science.

b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

Mutualism is a wonderful thing as long as it is voluntary. When it becomes enforced it turns into outright theft. As far as the comparisons to non human societies, be they bees, ants, or monkeys, they are not rational creatures so the analogies are severely flawed.

Frievolk wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

I'm not openly denying that. I'm suggesting that using Kropotkin's contemporaries as evidence isn't really that brilliant an idea lol

b-b-but I wasn't ;~;

Elwher wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
b-b-but Mutual Aid is a legitimate scientific outlook on humanity ;~;

Mutualism is a wonderful thing as long as it is voluntary. When it becomes enforced it turns into outright theft. As far as the comparisons to non human societies, be they bees, ants, or monkeys, they are not rational creatures so the analogies are severely flawed.

It's a much greater and much more heinous theft to the greater sum of humanity that one person may own a multitude of mansions, ships, and so forth.

And literally nobody said anything about enforced mutualism.

Torrocca wrote:

Free Arabian Nation wrote:Most ideologies that rely on the good nature of man are.

My ideology relies on Bread Santa's (and my) understanding of the scientific principles of biological mutualism as related to the human condition :^3

'scientific principles of biological mutualism', at the moment i can t investigate about, it seems to me nice, it is good sound, compliments. it is good, in aesthetic

Except that mutualism, while seemingly more palatable than other forms of "libertarian" socialism, would in effect justify large scale theft of property so long as it is deemed by some entity that that property is not in use and can be reappropriated.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Except that mutualism

c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t i s p e c i f i c a l l y s a i d , " b i o l o g i c a l m u t u a l i s m , " a s i n n o t t h e p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y

Torrocca wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Except that mutualism

c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t i s p e c i f i c a l l y s a i d , " b i o l o g i c a l m u t u a l i s m , " a s i n n o t t h e p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y

Better call Dar then

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t i s p e c i f i c a l l y s a i d , " b i o l o g i c a l m u t u a l i s m , " a s i n n o t t h e p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y

Better call Dar then

Don't make me destroy this place with the power of science >:c

Torrocca wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Better call Dar then

Don't make me destroy this place with the power of science >:c

Science fiction you mean

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
Don't make me destroy this place with the power of science >:c

Science fiction you mean

No, that's Rothbardism :^)

Torrocca wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
Science fiction you mean

No, that's Rothbardism :^)

The Xeer system works well in real life, actually.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Depends on the sort of anarchism one is talking about.

I'm not optimistic enough to believe in worldwide statelessness or a great revolution any time soon, but I think the state can be gradually weakened and chipped away at piece by piece, and that we might one day reach a point in which a significant number of independent anarchist communities are able to exist without getting swallowed up by the state.

I believe in anarchy one step at a time.

Consider cannabis. Before cannabis was legal in any US state, in some places like universities thousands of students would gather for mass smoke sessions on 4/20. They would openly break the law in front of the state, but they wouldn't be arrested because law enforcement didn't want to deal with the logistical and PR nightmare of rounding up thousands of people for a victimless crime. And every time this happened, the law against using cannabis was taken a little less seriously. That helped lead to legalization at the state level, and legalization at the state level is putting tremendous pressure on the federal government. More and more states are legalizing cannabis; it's a chain reaction that started with people openly displaying their contempt for prohibition and defying the state. And when we reach a point where the majority of US states have legalized it, the feds will have no choice but to remove it from Schedule 1 prohibition. They will have no choice because when over half the country is deliberately defying them, they look like a joke. It's an untenable position for a government to have a law which isn't being enforced and which the people hold in contempt, because it undermines the law itself, so eventually the federal government will capitulate.

There is a critical mass of people openly defying the law in which governments can no longer enforce it and so they back down. And when it's not just a single law but the state itself that people defy and hold in contempt, that can result in revolution. Revolutions do not necessarily have to be violent, they can be achieved by so many people defying the state that the state acquiesces rather than losing any semblance of legitimacy.

Page wrote:

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

Depends on the sort of anarchism one is talking about.

I'm not optimistic enough to believe in worldwide statelessness or a great revolution any time soon, but I think the state can be gradually weakened and chipped away at piece by piece, and that we might one day reach a point in which a significant number of independent anarchist communities are able to exist without getting swallowed up by the state.

I believe in anarchy one step at a time.

Consider cannabis. Before cannabis was legal in any US state, in some places like universities thousands of students would gather for mass smoke sessions on 4/20. They would openly break the law in front of the state, but they wouldn't be arrested because law enforcement didn't want to deal with the logistical and PR nightmare of rounding up thousands of people for a victimless crime. And every time this happened, the law against using cannabis was taken a little less seriously. That helped lead to legalization at the state level, and legalization at the state level is putting tremendous pressure on the federal government. More and more states are legalizing cannabis; it's a chain reaction that started with people openly displaying their contempt for prohibition and defying the state. And when we reach a point where the majority of US states have legalized it, the feds will have no choice but to remove it from Schedule 1 prohibition. They will have no choice because when over half the country is deliberately defying them, they look like a joke. It's an untenable position for a government to have a law which isn't being enforced and which the people hold in contempt, because it undermines the law itself, so eventually the federal government will capitulate.

There is a critical mass of people openly defying the law in which governments can no longer enforce it and so they back down. And when it's not just a single law but the state itself that people defy and hold in contempt, that can result in revolution. Revolutions do not necessarily have to be violent, they can be achieved by so many people defying the state that the state acquiesces rather than losing any semblance of legitimacy.

This is very well written, bravo.

Torrocca wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:Except that mutualism

c o n s i d e r t h e f a c t t h a t i s p e c i f i c a l l y s a i d , " b i o l o g i c a l m u t u a l i s m , " a s i n n o t t h e p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y

Biological mutualism is literally just market specialization, though. I don't know how that could inform anything about collectivist policy preference.

Autarkheia wrote:Anarchists are just idealists. They're not necessarily wrong, they're just ... rather optimistic.

The question of anarchism vs. minarchism is generally a question of feedback loop, or just cybernetics in general - which starting point ensures the optimal result (property rights and market economics in the case of libertarianism), state monopoly or distributed violence?

At least, that is the case for the right. I don't think the left has much in their own theory of public choice.