Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Anarchism
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 11/17/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Obviously it's still there, because it's how things are.
But the point is that it doesn't have much of an affect on us. It doesn't apply to us in the same way, and it's not a concept that rules our existence, seeing as now, even the unfit are able to live.


Quite wrong there, first of all, Evolution was never the 'survival of the fittest', rather, what is meant by Darwinian Evolution was that those who are best adapted to an environment survives and pass on their genes- in that sense, it still applies to us, even if it is minutely hindered by our technology. The traits that is best adapted to our environment or provides a certain quality which helps it survive or attract a mate will, regardless of technology, still pass down. In that sense, just because we do not observe it at the moment, that we see the 'unfit' surviving, it does not follow that their genes will pass down, or pass down for very long, and so, those traits will not affect the gene pool of the human race, therefore, yes, we are still subject to the laws of nature and nature's law.





I thought that went without saying. Doesn't it?
Has history ever implied otherwise?


It goes without saying, and it is an obvious truth, that government only has legitimacy in so far as we consent to give it legitimacy, and, in order to retain that legitimacy, it must justify all its actions. It also goes without saying, and is equally obvious, that almost every function of government is, to a greater or lesser degree, unjustifiable. Therefore, the government must limit itself to where it is necessary to protect man's natural liberty- to do as he will so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others.

Therefore, I think it is obvious that the only form of government that is justifiable is either a Libertarian Socialist Government, or no government.


Not in itself, seeing as it reigns in the wild nature and works there.
But mankind is different.
As you said: "Man is in Liberty when he can do whatever he desires- unhindered- so long as he does not impede another man's liberty to do as he desires."
But the problem is that that is exactly what would happen. Which is why mankind is not fit for absolute liberty.


That is an assumption you have made, that this is exactly what will happen, and that laws are what restrict man from complete psychopathy. So, your beliefs only holds true under the condition that man is naturally inclined to oppressing each other, but any form of oppression would constitute a form of governance, that is, to restrict the liberty of another, to rule over another man, to force him into chains and servitude, either through force or intimidation- therefore, to have another man rule another man, that is, 'impeding on another man's liberty to do as he desire'- is, in fact, contrary to Anarchist doctrines, to oppose government on all level, from the capitalists governance of the Proletariat, to the oppression of one another.




Not really, but we have still made it so that it does. Because it's for the good of the general public.


It has no legitimacy until it can justify itself- that is, if it can justify its rulership for the good of its citizen- to act for the good of the public, we must be proved that it is actually a good and for the public. If neither of these are satisfied (and they rarely are), then they have no legitimacy to act so.



Yeah well I don't. Mankind is stupid, selfish and evil.
I have no faith what so ever in that such a future will ever exist.


Unfounded, prove it first.


And not only because of that, but also because humans are pack animals. We formed societies for a reason. Because we function better and advance faster as a community than we do alone.


Of course there is still human interaction within an anarchist society, but it is an interaction between equals rather than between rulers, superiors, etc.


Not to mention it makes us better equipped to face danger. Strength in numbers and all.


Danger from other organised groups? Many strands of anarchism tend to be internationalist.

Or, do you mean in hunting animals, producing items, etc. Well, then, it is still cooperation between equals, not workers dictated by some boss fellow.


There is literally no reason NOT to form societies, other than childish illusions of absolute freedom and liberty, which in the end would do nothing but harm us.


Anarchism is not the absence of Order, but another form of Order, and Order based upon Equals.


Pierre Joseph Proudhon wrote

Être GOUVERNÉ, c'est être gardé à vue, inspecté, espionné, dirigé, légiféré, réglementé, parqué, endoctriné, prêché, contrôlé, estimé, apprécié, censuré, commandé, par des êtres qui n'ont ni le titre, ni la science, ni la vertu... Être GOUVERNÉ, c'est être, à chaque opération, à chaque transaction, à chaque mouvement, noté, enregistré, recensé, tarifé, timbré, toisé, coté, cotisé, patenté, licencié, autorisé, apostillé, admonesté, empêché, réformé, redressé, corrigé. C'est, sous prétexte d'utilité publique, et au nom de l'intérêt général, être mis à contribution, exercé, rançonné, exploité, monopolisé, concussionné, pressuré, mystifié, volé ; puis, à la moindre résistance, au premier mot de plainte, réprimé, amendé, vilipendé, vexé, traqué, houspillé, assommé, désarmé, garrotté, emprisonné, fusillé, mitraillé, jugé, condamné, déporté, sacrifié, vendu, trahi, et pour comble, joué, berné, outragé, déshonoré. Voilà le gouvernement, voilà sa justice, voilà sa morale !


62594 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/12

longfenglim wrote:


Not in itself, seeing as it reigns in the wild nature and works there.
But mankind is different.
As you said: "Man is in Liberty when he can do whatever he desires- unhindered- so long as he does not impede another man's liberty to do as he desires."
But the problem is that that is exactly what would happen. Which is why mankind is not fit for absolute liberty.


That is an assumption you have made, that this is exactly what will happen, and that laws are what restrict man from complete psychopathy. So, your beliefs only holds true under the condition that man is naturally inclined to oppressing each other, but any form of oppression would constitute a form of governance, that is, to restrict the liberty of another, to rule over another man, to force him into chains and servitude, either through force or intimidation- therefore, to have another man rule another man, that is, 'impeding on another man's liberty to do as he desire'- is, in fact, contrary to Anarchist doctrines, to oppose government on all level, from the capitalists governance of the Proletariat, to the oppression of one another.



The bolded text is truth. Man is naturally inclined to oppressing each other. The fact that this is contrary to Anarchist doctrines is one of the examples why an Anarchy would quickly fall to chaos or form into a government. There are those who cannot be satisfied unless they are controlling the lives of others. There are those who would feel they have something to gain by controlling others. And there are those who wish to control others "for their own benefit". These people don't suddenly shape up or disappear simply because a nation/area/people declare that they are Anarchist.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/17/12 , edited 11/17/12

ishe5555 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Not in itself, seeing as it reigns in the wild nature and works there.
But mankind is different.
As you said: "Man is in Liberty when he can do whatever he desires- unhindered- so long as he does not impede another man's liberty to do as he desires."
But the problem is that that is exactly what would happen. Which is why mankind is not fit for absolute liberty.


That is an assumption you have made, that this is exactly what will happen, and that laws are what restrict man from complete psychopathy. So, your beliefs only holds true under the condition that man is naturally inclined to oppressing each other, but any form of oppression would constitute a form of governance, that is, to restrict the liberty of another, to rule over another man, to force him into chains and servitude, either through force or intimidation- therefore, to have another man rule another man, that is, 'impeding on another man's liberty to do as he desire'- is, in fact, contrary to Anarchist doctrines, to oppose government on all level, from the capitalists governance of the Proletariat, to the oppression of one another.



The bolded text is truth. Man is naturally inclined to oppressing each other. The fact that this is contrary to Anarchist doctrines is one of the examples why an Anarchy would quickly fall to chaos or form into a government. There are those who cannot be satisfied unless they are controlling the lives of others. There are those who would feel they have something to gain by controlling others. And there are those who wish to control others "for their own benefit". These people don't suddenly shape up or disappear simply because a nation/area/people declare that they are Anarchist.


You assume that it is true- do not mistaken your assumptions be to fact.

First, it has been observed that in the more primitive societies of the world, while there is still governance, it is remarkable that this governance shows a greater degree of equality, both between the sexes and the classes, and a lesser degree of oppression for it, simply because, being a extremely small unit, each member is almost equally important, and that different society class their society and oppress them based upon the worth or perceived worth of a certain class or gender or group. China, for example, held artisans to be on a lower order than farmers, whereas European societies then to hold artisans and craftsman higher than farmers, simply because the perceived worth of these two groups are entirely different in different societies, and their laws are crafted in such a way that reflect the biases of those society.

We can imagine, based on this, that earliest man held a greater degree of equality, and are necessarily and naturally egalitarian because each person is worth just as much as the next person in the group in terms of providing for food- Women and children, lacking strength, forage for edible plants, men gathered to hunt for animals, every member, then, was a necessity, and so, were made equal by that necessity.

It would seem, then, that inequality only arise when a certain group either becomes less important as the society develops, or were perceived to be less important. As a Libertarian- or rather, as a Libertarian Socialist (as the original Anarchists originally described themselves)- I hold that inequality would vanish simply because those are created by the unfair Economic Situation, rather than having any reality in and of itself.

Therefore, thinking about things sociologically, psychologically, and biologically, there is no reason to assume that man is naturally inclined to inequality, and, quite the contrary, we are naturally inclined to equality and cooperation.

Likewise, not all Anarchist hold that we should, at once, have no government, but we should have less government until we are ready to have no government (to paraphrase the American Philosopher Thoreau). That is to say, until it is possible that man should have no government, we must, only out of necessity, have government, but those governance must be kept at a minimal and only where it is justifiable.

Thus, if you want to make an assumption, and draw the conclusions freely from it, and say it doesn't work, you must prove your premise, otherwise, your argument is about as valid as, say:

'You are wrong because you are completely and utterly wrong'.
62594 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 11/18/12

longfenglim wrote:



You assume that it is true- do not mistaken your assumptions be to fact.


You say I shouldn't make assumptions about human nature, which is easily observable, but then you make a list of broad sweeping assumptions.


longfenglim wrote:

First, it has been observed that in the more primitive societies of the world, while there is still governance, it is remarkable that this governance shows a greater degree of equality, both between the sexes and the classes, and a lesser degree of oppression for it, simply because, being a extremely small unit, each member is almost equally important, and that different society class their society and oppress them based upon the worth or perceived worth of a certain class or gender or group.


You would have to assume that these societies behave the same way while under observation than while not under observation. As you stated, there is still governance. You would also have to assume that were that society to be expanded to a much larger group that this would remain the case. With a larger group of people, it is much easier for cliques, then groups, and then the groups become sufficient without need of the other groups. The fear of being ousted from the small group that used to exist, now dissipates because they are part of sufficient group within the society. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say with the bolded area. Are you implying that oppression within this anarchistic society you believe in is completely fine as long as those oppressed are of a lesser perceived worth? Really the bolded just further enforces my "assumption" about human nature.


longfenglim wrote:China, for example, held artisans to be on a lower order than farmers, whereas European societies then to hold artisans and craftsman higher than farmers, simply because the perceived worth of these two groups are entirely different in different societies, and their laws are crafted in such a way that reflect the biases of those society.


I thought you were refuting my "assumption" about it being part of human nature to try to oppress others. Chinese and European societies are examples of part of human nature. China often had fairly oppressive societies. Farmers may have been held as a higher worth, but even they were often treated poorly. It was the rulers who got everything.


longfenglim wrote:

We can imagine, based on this, that earliest man held a greater degree of equality, and are necessarily and naturally egalitarian because each person is worth just as much as the next person in the group in terms of providing for food- Women and children, lacking strength, forage for edible plants, men gathered to hunt for animals, every member, then, was a necessity, and so, were made equal by that necessity.


This is such a massive leap of an assumption. What exactly in the prior areas of your comment are you basing this on? Even if there had been some basis from your prior comments, this would be a wild assumption about an unrecorded society.


longfenglim wrote:

It would seem, then, that inequality only arise when a certain group either becomes less important as the society develops, or were perceived to be less important. As a Libertarian- or rather, as a Libertarian Socialist (as the original Anarchists originally described themselves)- I hold that inequality would vanish simply because those are created by the unfair Economic Situation, rather than having any reality in and of itself.


Humans will always find a reason to perceive a group/individual as having less worth/importance, giving them a reason to oppress them. They may not always realize they are searching for a reason to oppress others, but once the reason is found (real or manufactured), then the oppression begins. The "unfair Economic Situation" is a product of human nature, not the cause of it. Even if society were completely without money, there would be inequality with other resources.


longfenglim wrote:

Therefore, thinking about things sociologically, psychologically, and biologically, there is no reason to assume that man is naturally inclined to inequality, and, quite the contrary, we are naturally inclined to equality and cooperation.


I've seen nothing in post or in life to indicate that man is naturally inclined to equality, and history says the opposite. It is good to look to the future and what could be. But it is folly to look to the future without considering the past.


longfenglim wrote:
Likewise, not all Anarchist hold that we should, at once, have no government, but we should have less government until we are ready to have no government (to paraphrase the American Philosopher Thoreau). That is to say, until it is possible that man should have no government, we must, only out of necessity, have government, but those governance must be kept at a minimal and only where it is justifiable.


I agree with you that the best thing for citizens of a government is for government intrusion to be kept to a minimal and only where justifiable. I disagree that the level of government needed would shrink to any where near the level that no government was needed. If anything, Libertarian is closest to what I feel is best for the citizenry. But I think the reason I feel that is nearly the opposite reason you feel that a Libertarian Socialism is best.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/18/12 , edited 11/18/12

ishe5555 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



You assume that it is true- do not mistaken your assumptions be to fact.


You say I shouldn't make assumptions about human nature, which is easily observable, but then you make a list of broad sweeping assumptions.


longfenglim wrote:

First, it has been observed that in the more primitive societies of the world, while there is still governance, it is remarkable that this governance shows a greater degree of equality, both between the sexes and the classes, and a lesser degree of oppression for it, simply because, being a extremely small unit, each member is almost equally important, and that different society class their society and oppress them based upon the worth or perceived worth of a certain class or gender or group.


You would have to assume that these societies behave the same way while under observation than while not under observation. As you stated, there is still governance. You would also have to assume that were that society to be expanded to a much larger group that this would remain the case. With a larger group of people, it is much easier for cliques, then groups, and then the groups become sufficient without need of the other groups. The fear of being ousted from the small group that used to exist, now dissipates because they are part of sufficient group within the society. I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say with the bolded area. Are you implying that oppression within this anarchistic society you believe in is completely fine as long as those oppressed are of a lesser perceived worth? Really the bolded just further enforces my "assumption" about human nature.


longfenglim wrote:China, for example, held artisans to be on a lower order than farmers, whereas European societies then to hold artisans and craftsman higher than farmers, simply because the perceived worth of these two groups are entirely different in different societies, and their laws are crafted in such a way that reflect the biases of those society.


I thought you were refuting my "assumption" about it being part of human nature to try to oppress others. Chinese and European societies are examples of part of human nature. China often had fairly oppressive societies. Farmers may have been held as a higher worth, but even they were often treated poorly. It was the rulers who got everything.


longfenglim wrote:

We can imagine, based on this, that earliest man held a greater degree of equality, and are necessarily and naturally egalitarian because each person is worth just as much as the next person in the group in terms of providing for food- Women and children, lacking strength, forage for edible plants, men gathered to hunt for animals, every member, then, was a necessity, and so, were made equal by that necessity.


This is such a massive leap of an assumption. What exactly in the prior areas of your comment are you basing this on? Even if there had been some basis from your prior comments, this would be a wild assumption about an unrecorded society.


longfenglim wrote:

It would seem, then, that inequality only arise when a certain group either becomes less important as the society develops, or were perceived to be less important. As a Libertarian- or rather, as a Libertarian Socialist (as the original Anarchists originally described themselves)- I hold that inequality would vanish simply because those are created by the unfair Economic Situation, rather than having any reality in and of itself.


Humans will always find a reason to perceive a group/individual as having less worth/importance, giving them a reason to oppress them. They may not always realize they are searching for a reason to oppress others, but once the reason is found (real or manufactured), then the oppression begins. The "unfair Economic Situation" is a product of human nature, not the cause of it. Even if society were completely without money, there would be inequality with other resources.


longfenglim wrote:

Therefore, thinking about things sociologically, psychologically, and biologically, there is no reason to assume that man is naturally inclined to inequality, and, quite the contrary, we are naturally inclined to equality and cooperation.


I've seen nothing in post or in life to indicate that man is naturally inclined to equality, and history says the opposite. It is good to look to the future and what could be. But it is folly to look to the future without considering the past.


longfenglim wrote:
Likewise, not all Anarchist hold that we should, at once, have no government, but we should have less government until we are ready to have no government (to paraphrase the American Philosopher Thoreau). That is to say, until it is possible that man should have no government, we must, only out of necessity, have government, but those governance must be kept at a minimal and only where it is justifiable.


I agree with you that the best thing for citizens of a government is for government intrusion to be kept to a minimal and only where justifiable. I disagree that the level of government needed would shrink to any where near the level that no government was needed. If anything, Libertarian is closest to what I feel is best for the citizenry. But I think the reason I feel that is nearly the opposite reason you feel that a Libertarian Socialism is best.



First, you say that it is 'easily observable', but fail to cite examples to prove your point- just because you say that it is common knowledge and common truth, doesn't make it either common or true. Thus, you are making an a priori assumption on human nature, follow providing absolutely no justification for it but that you believe it to be true. Thus, your argument is still unfounded.

Secondly, you are trying to stretch incredulity to say that they somehow behave differently under observation than alone- that is, where the scientific method is applied to anthropology, you just dismiss it as a change in behaviour when around strangers. But, why do you think that they suddenly change when unobserved? Surely they would behave the same way, regardless of whether they are observed or not, in fact, most anthropologist tend to try and integrate themselves into that society when studying them. So, basically, you are saying that these society change under observation, just as gravity, atoms, or the sun somehow behaves differently when unobserved. Your argument there holds no weight.

Third, I have said that there is still governance, but that this governance is based upon a greater degree of equality because, in such a small group, the value of the individual and his contribution is much greater than in a larger group simply by proportion. Therefore, since each hand is needed, the power of the individual is greater, and therefore, greater equality. I have never claimed that primitive societies are wholly egalitarian, but they are more egalitarian.

Oppression only comes when the worth of the labour of a group is reduced- for example, Historically, it have been documented that earliest man and earliest woman were, while not entirely equal, held a greater degree of equality than they did latter- this, they attributed to the fact that in hunter gather societies, and in early farming societies, women tend to play a greater role than they do in latter farming societies, and even more in urban societies. Thus, as the worth, or perceived worth, of women declined, so to did their equality.

Now, you cite the example China as having laws oppressive towards farmers- I should have said Ancient China- but all this by the by- the worth and power of the farmer in Ancient China is greater than that of the artisan simply because their labour were held to be more important than the labour of the artisan, and, while China wasn't, certainly, a equal society, the Chinese held that the worth of the Scholar and Government Officials to be higher than that of the farmer- the inequality only exist because of the perceived worth of the labour of each class.

So, seeing that inequalities only exist because the worth of someone's labour is held to be lower than that of others, and so, worth less to society, inequality arise. Therefore, we can say that in societies where the labour is more equally distributed and held to be of equal or almost equal worth, there is greater equality, and the opposite, as the above examples demonstrated. Thus, Anarchists tend to call for a Classless society.

There is no reason, then, to assume, as with you, that man is inherently inclined to oppression, especially when there is no evidence provided for this claim. Indeed, this claim is held to be an axiom by you critics, and an unquestionable axioms, when, as demonstrated, it clearly has no basis in reality.

Thus your argument is only founded under the sole condition that your premise is true, and so, there is no argument until you can show your premise is true to begin with, and, as you have failed to do so, only citing some vague, non-specific 'historical examples' (whereas I have cited actual historical and anthropological examples), your arguments are not valid until your founding assumption (humans are selfish, inclined to oppression, etc.) are founded.

You say it is a folly to look into the future without looking into the past, but what past- an imaginary past that is conjured up with no basis in actual history? How about the Paris Commune, or the CNT during the Spanish Civil War?

Of course, it is so much easier to say that history support your thesis than prove that history support your thesis-


But, as I said, Anarchism is the only form of government that any thinking person can support- Government is almost entirely unjustifiable, as is any form of Oppression. Government is needed in so far as it is necessary, and when it is no longer necessary, we should have no government at all.
16202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 11/18/12
read the book "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. the book is about a libertarian revolution that takes place on the Moon. during a conversation, one of the characters describes his beliefs as "rational anarchism" below:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as "state" and "society" and "government" have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

I pretty much agree with that sentiment, although with all the talk in this thread about collectivist anarchism, a notion i reject outright (really any form of collectivism), I should re-codify the label for myself as "rational anarcho-capitalist" so there isn't any confusion. I don't really have the desire to get into a debate about anarcho-capitalism versus social/collectivist anarchism as I believe your philosophy is contradictio in terminis, and you probably believe that of mine. which brings us back to the rationalist view of anarchism that is described in Heinlein's book, not all individuals believe as I believe, I have no wish to change that, I simply have to live with it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/18/12 , edited 11/18/12

sarrukin wrote:

read the book "the Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. the book is about a libertarian revolution that takes place on the Moon. during a conversation, one of the characters describes his beliefs as "rational anarchism" below:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as "state" and "society" and "government" have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

I pretty much agree with that sentiment, although with all the talk in this thread about collectivist anarchism, a notion i reject outright (really any form of collectivism), I should re-codify the label for myself as "rational anarcho-capitalist" so there isn't any confusion. I don't really have the desire to get into a debate about anarcho-capitalism versus social/collectivist anarchism as I believe your philosophy is contradictio in terminis, and you probably believe that of mine. which brings us back to the rationalist view of anarchism that is described in Heinlein's book, not all individuals believe as I believe, I have no wish to change that, I simply have to live with it.


I cannot see how one can Anarchist and a Capitalist, because a Capitalist system encourages another form of government within the workplace- I frankly do not see that much of a difference between the Government, which we, I believe, are all in agreement in saying is an evil and whose existence necessarily entails some curtailing of our liberty, and the little government of the Cooperation, where all the decisions are made at the top, by people as divorced from the labour as the politicians are divorced from actual people and society, but who are not at all elected by those that they rule. Such libertarianism seems to me less about the abolition of government, than about establishing a new form of government based upon the smaller governments of the Corporation.

But, I am curious as to understand how one can possibly reconcile these two ideas, because these ideas, it seems to me, are almost entirely irreconcilable.
112 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 1/1/13
There cannot be a proper government without a proper (radical) opposition.
9071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / South Bend, IN
Offline
Posted 1/1/13
I kind of see it as a strobe light (which honest to God, if there is a gray light then I'd use that but a strobe light is the first thing that came to mind). I don't think anyone would know what to do with themselves at first but over time there will probably be some form of law of government that someone will try to initiate. When that happens, and when someone finds their interest in forming set government then a new one will be established. I don't always agree with what the government is doing (weather it be Republican or Democrat, frankly I can care less), but the idea of true anarchy is but a dream. A form of government similar or completely opposite to the one we have now will come around sooner or later.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.