[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40878319]The people are the tyrants. They wouldn't be obvious, they would intelligently and stealthily come to be a tyrant, and when that happens, no one would be able to do anything[/QUOTE]
um so anarchism would degenerate into the united states?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877842]no i am counting on the idea that no one will let other people step up and take the leading position freely.[/QUOTE]
Ugh, how exactly?
Some people are naturally better leaders than others, that's a fact. It doesn't take much for someone with good charisma and some guns to take rule and dominate a small population. How do you think ruling dynasties began?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877842]but that means the worst an anarchist system can get is that it becomes a system like the one we are in currently.
i don't see how that's an argument from a statist's perspective. "anarchism can never work, it will always fail and turn into the current system again!"[/QUOTE]
No. Absolutely not. In the current model of ruling, the executive, legislative and judicial institutions of the state are kept somewhat apart from each other, and can neutralize each other in case one of them becomes too compromised. In order to turn a country such as the united states into a fascist state, you would need to break the established barriers between these institutions, which would require tremendous political force.
In an anarchist society, these barriers don't exist by definition- A single person has the potential to become the local judge, jury and executioner.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40877909]Well I prefer this system to being ruled by a local warlord and being fearful of armed bandits.[/QUOTE]
Well, same for me wouldn't you guess.
Now stop for a minute and think.
What you described is not what anarchism upholds.
Anarchy isn't everybody fending for themselves, anarchy have at its core the well being and equality for everyone through freedom of oppression and coercion.
It's letting people decide what they want to do with their lives. Not a CEO, not a President.
You. Your life.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878641]
In an anarchist society, these barriers don't exist by definition- A single person has the potential to become the local judge, jury and executioner.[/QUOTE]
Untrue, because to become judge, jury and executioner you would need to appointed to the job by your community.
Who in their right mind would think it's good to concentrate that much power into the hands of one man?
I repeat, anarchism isn't individual isolationism, it's the whole opposite! It is the participation of the individual in all political processes that touches its life in any way shape or form.
You people need to think
[IMG]http://www.american-buddha.com/noamchomskybiocover.jpg[/IMG]
when you think about anarchy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40877946]nothing? if people want a state again, they can construct a state. anarchism doesn't mean to restrict people's will.
[/QUOTE]So if the people's will desires a state, you've just gone in a pointless circle.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40878643]Well, same for me wouldn't you guess.
Now stop for a minute and think.
What you described is not what anarchism upholds.
Anarchy isn't everybody fending for themselves, anarchy have at its core the well being and equality for everyone through freedom of oppression and coercion.
It's letting people decide what they want to do with their lives. Not a CEO, not a President.
You. Your life.
Untrue, because to become judge, jury and executioner you would need to appointed to the job by your community.
Who in their right mind would think it's good to concentrate that much power into the hands of one man?
I repeat, anarchism isn't individual isolationism, it's the whole opposite! It is the participation of the individual in all political processes that touches its life in any way shape or form.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between what you think anarchism should be and what it would be. It doesn't matter how you define it, anything that happens within the bounds of there being no government is still anarchy.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878641]Ugh, how exactly?
Some people are naturally better leaders than others, that's a fact. It doesn't take much for someone with good charisma and some guns to take rule and dominate a small population. How do you think ruling dynasties began?[/quote]
it's quite unlikely to happen under an anarchist system since people would already be organized and it's fairly hard for a tyrant to just come and dominate an already organized community.
[quote]No. Absolutely not. In the current model of ruling, the executive, legislative and judicial institutions of the state are kept somewhat apart from each other, and can neutralize each other in case one of them becomes too compromised. In order to turn a country such as the united states into a fascist state, you would need to break the established barriers between these institutions, which would require tremendous political force.
In an anarchist society, these barriers don't exist by definition- A single person has the potential to become the local judge, jury and executioner.[/QUOTE]
yea the usa is so un-fascist which is why the government ignores our constitution constantly, puts people under surveillance, uses the criminal justice system to imprison dissenters, and infiltrates social movements to undermine them.
there is a superficial separation of powers, but it doesn't mean much when the government gets away with oppressing its citizens anyways.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40878643]
Untrue, because to become judge, jury and executioner you would need to appointed to the job by your community.
Who in their right mind would think it's good to concentrate that much power into the hands of one man?
[/QUOTE]
Religious fundamentalists.
A cult leader arms himself and his members with guns, sends them into a small town and forces everyone there to submit to him. In the current state of affairs, the local or federal state would come in and uproot him. In an anarchist society, the people of that town are fucked.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40878690]So if the people's will desires a state, you've just gone in a pointless circle.[/quote]
at least the choice is given. right now if we don't want a state we have to rebel to overthrow it.
[quote]There's a difference between what you think anarchism should be and what it would be. It doesn't matter how you define it, anything that happens within the bounds of there being no government is still anarchy.[/QUOTE]
define "government" and "state" for me please. anarchism has fairly nuanced definitions of both.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878872]Religious fundamentalists.
A cult leader arms himself and his members with guns, sends them into a small town and forces everyone there to submit to him. In the current state of affairs, the local or federal state would come in and uproot him. In an anarchist society, the people of that town are fucked.[/QUOTE]
you are seriously in constant fear of religious fundamentalists coming to every community with guns and trying to dominate everyone? that's a ridiculous fear.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40878852]
yea the usa is so un-fascist which is why the government ignores our constitution constantly[/QUOTE]
Wait wait wait. I gotta stop you there. Do you realize how many times the united states supreme court forced the government's hand by declaring that the actions they are taking are unconstitutional?
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878897]Wait wait wait. I gotta stop you there. Do you realize how many times the united states supreme court forced the government's hand by declaring that the actions they are taking are unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]
not enough obviously.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40878874]
you are seriously in constant fear of religious fundamentalists coming to every community with guns and trying to dominate everyone? that's a ridiculous fear.[/QUOTE]
[b]WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT.[/b] The only reason i'm not afraid of such occasion is because I know local and federal police could stop them.
The united states has 300 million citizens in it. Do you really believe such an event could never ever occur? Not even in the more religious states?
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878917][b]WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT.[/b] The only reason i'm not afraid of such occasion is because I know local and federal police could stop them.
The united states has 300 million citizens in them. Do you really believe such an event could never ever occur?[/QUOTE]
it's not something i'm particularly worried about since it's irrational and unwarranted. communities have means to protect themselves. i don't need the government to oppress me then tell me they are really protecting me from some boogeyman. it's childish as fuck.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
you operate under the mindset that the only separation between complete chaos and order is some tyrannical father figure standing with a gun to all our heads telling us to behave.
i don't subscribe to that irrational fear.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40878936]
you operate under the mindset that the only separation between complete chaos and order is some tyrannical father figure standing with a gun to all our heads telling us to behave.
i don't subscribe to that irrational fear.[/QUOTE]
"Irrational"?
It already happened.
Humans, when they first started walking on this earth, were anarchists by nature. They started out with no governing body, no organization to unite them. And look where that led them- Kings, rulers and tyrants. In a modern day society, with a lot more access to mobility, this process will take place even faster.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
It's like you're living in a fantasy world wherein everyone gives a shit about everyone else.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878994]"Irrational"?
It already happened.
Humans, when they first started walking on this earth, were anarchists by nature. They started out with no governing body, no organization to unite them. And look where that led them- Kings, rulers and tyrants. In a modern day society, with a lot more access to mobility, this process will take place even faster.[/QUOTE]
if they had no organization or unity they weren't anarchists. pre-historic society isn't really anarchist because they didn't struggle and organize against oppression, the context of their lives were completely different. we have the means the learn from the past, and seeing the way power structures come into being gives us a very large edge over any hunter-gatherer society.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40878643]
I repeat, anarchism isn't individual isolationism, it's the whole opposite! It is the participation of the individual in all political processes that touches its life in any way shape or form.
[/QUOTE]
How do you allow all 7 and a half billion people on the planet to participate in such a system? Even for a tiny town, how do you do that for all 1000 people in that town?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40878874]at least the choice is given. right now if we don't want a state we have to rebel to overthrow it.
[/QUOTE]
And you'd still have to overthrow it again.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40878874]
define "government" and "state" for me please. anarchism has fairly nuanced definitions of both.
[/QUOTE]
A institution capable of creating and enforcing laws. You can make theories about how people would or should act without a government all you want, but what you get is what you get.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879029]if they had no organization or unity they weren't anarchists. pre-historic society isn't really anarchist because they didn't struggle and organize against oppression, the context of their lives were completely different. we have the means the learn from the past, and seeing the way power structures come into being gives us a very large edge over any hunter-gatherer society.[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40878994]
It's like you're living in a fantasy world wherein everyone gives a shit about everyone else.[/QUOTE]
It's like you live in the real world where everyone is being made into a docile cog for the capitalist system. Oh shit we do.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;40879048]How do you allow all 7 and a half billion people on the planet to participate in such a system? Even for a tiny town, how do you do that for all 1000 people in that town?[/QUOTE]
You organize, towns by towns first I assume, federating or confederating at higher level depending on what the people wants.
Do you really think capitalism have a special place for every 7 and half billion people on this planet?
That must be why all these people die everyday for lack of food and water. I can only guess
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40879064][citation needed][/QUOTE]
This isn't wikipedia and what he says is basic historical facts.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40879052]
A institution capable of creating and enforcing laws. You can make theories about how people would or should act without a government all you want, but what you get is what you get.[/QUOTE]
so can you show any example where anarchism simply degenerates into chaos?
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40879064][citation needed][/QUOTE]
citation on what lol
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40879073]It's like you live in the real world where everyone is being made into a docile cog for the capitalist system. Oh shit we do.[/QUOTE]
lol, great reply. Totally makes you sound like someone over 14 years old.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879075]so can you show any example where anarchism simply degenerates into chaos?[/QUOTE]
Can you show any example of an anarchist society working on a large scale for multiple generations?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879075]
citation on what lol[/QUOTE]
You suggest that once we dissolve government, we will have an edge on older civilizations. Why?
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40879073]It's like you live in the real world where everyone is being made into a docile cog for the capitalist system. Oh shit we do.
[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/1znah4l.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40879107]Can you show any example of an anarchist society working on a large scale for multiple generations?[/QUOTE]
not a technologist one, no. there are indigenous societies but not industrial.
so how are you to say how anarchy would develop or degenerate in the real world?
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40879108]You suggest that once we dissolve government, we will have an edge on older civilizations. Why?[/QUOTE]
because we have a history of statist rule and can look back to that history to analyze how tyrannical structures come into place. hunter-gatherers didn't organize and live in the context of being respectful or fearful of the threat of totalitarianism. we can.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40879123][IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/1znah4l.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
lol that comic proves his point better than it proves yours.
all governments and economic doctrines suck
argument over
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40879096]lol, great reply. Totally makes you sound like someone over 14 years old.[/QUOTE]
Even I. I don't make myself out to be better than you.
But it would be damn foolish to think that you are not being controlled in one way or the other to do what you do. It's basic ''democratic'' curriculum that if you can't control people by force, you need to be able to manufacture their consent.
[QUOTE=KingArcher;40879156]all governments and economic doctrines suck
argument over[/QUOTE]
we need to hurry up and reach the technological singularity
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879152]
because we have a history of statist rule and can look back to that history to analyze how tyrannical structures come into place. hunter-gatherers didn't organize and live in the context of being respectful or fearful of the threat of totalitarianism. we can.
[/QUOTE]
And how do you plan to make everyone agree with you, exactly?
What happens if an individual in an anarchist society decides that he prefers to form and live under a totalitarian rule? What if several people believe that? How do you stop them?
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;40879171]Even I. I don't make myself out to be better than you.
But it would be damn foolish to think that you are not being controlled in one way or the other to do what you do. It's basic ''democratic'' curriculum that if you can't control people by force, you need to be able to manufacture their consent.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJuqoDvyXOk&bpctr=1370206360[/media]
i love chomsky.
[editline]2nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glorbo;40879204]And how do you plan to make everyone agree with you, exactly?[/QUOTE]
who says i want everyone to agree with me?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879210]
who says i want everyone to agree with me?[/QUOTE]
you because you're trying to persuade us right now into agreeing or else you wouldnt even be in this thread
i mean im not even for or against any side here in this discussion but come on dont insult us like that
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40879210]
who says i want everyone to agree with me?[/QUOTE]
Because if they don't, then your system collapses in on itself.
You would need a substantial majority that supports your cause in order to keep an anarchist society operational.
Let's give the population in your model a 50-50 split. Who do you think would win? The "let's leave everybody alone" group or the "I want to tell everyone what to do" group?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
