Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-06-2014, 05:12 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 05:19 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(21-06-2014 06:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Adherence to anarchism is willful ignorance of human nature. Drinking Beverage
Which is....?

Ok, let's suppose the human nature is really, really, deeply corrupt back-stabbing stone evil.
So let's elect some of these people as governors! Great idea Thumbsup I'm not sure if your position is projection or non-sequitur.

If Epicuros was an anarchist, this is what he'd say.
Are people bad? Then how can they make just laws?
Are people good? Then why do we need government?
Are some people good and some bad? Then how do we separate them?
Do evil people crave power? Then why put all the power in few hands?
If people are selfish, then how can in representative democracy few represent many?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 01:16 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:12 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I read that in high school, as did most everyone I know. Anarchists love to play the No True Scotsman card to avoid real world examples (mainly because the real world disproves their axioms), but this is the first time I have seen anyone disallow the only successful versions (aka the parasitic ones) from the conversation. But please do attempt to educate me on anarchy, I have studied it for a long time and find it shallow and juvenile, ignoring reality to instead tilt at windmills of it's own design.

but anarchism is not that much of a dogmatist position comparing to others it mostly admits that for it to be more complete and powerful , need to operate and frankly comparing to other positions anarchism had a few chances but look at the huge influence left ; it doesn't say it applies to everything it doesn't claim to be scientific and this is why I'm not agree with it when you generalize anarchism with anarcho-syndicalism or ilegalism I mean surely you've read the critics by both anarchists and marxists even the Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed magazine tried to warn other on this issue.

I am going to assume english is not your first language since iirc you said you were from a majority muslim country. I don't want meaning to get lost in translation and I think some of yours did.

(21-06-2014 05:01 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  I'm also an Anarcho-syndicalist

And then saying Nonono You can not use Anarcho-syndicalism in a comparison is rather insane. It is the only version of anarchy that can survive on any scale. However it does not scale up, once you go beyond a couple hundred people it collapses and either becomes some kind of social democracy or it gets absorbed into the larger surrounding state.

(22-06-2014 01:16 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  but seriously, when people say Stalin was an atheist and look at what he did , it's the same as saying look at the french anarchists and what they did

Yabbut not only was he not (he was almost ordained as an eastern orthodox priest)
an atheist that is a red herring. He is a perfect example of how communism fails in the real world.

(22-06-2014 01:16 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  the point is that in both cases there were people who saw the the fault in their movement and tried to show people that : Stalinism is not Marxism and they both are not atheism ... all I'm saying is don't generalize it to criminalism , the mutual aid , the free thought of anarchy does not result in killings and removing the nets , we need boundaries and nets it even offers private immunity and a great right to individual ;

This sentence doesn't parse. I am not sure what you are attempting to say here.
(22-06-2014 01:16 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  Micheal Onfray for example who's book on atheism was translated to english is an anarchist but he is not against property or a central power, anarchism simply says we don't need government to base that on ...

Then quite simply he is not an anarchist. Having a central power and calling it skynet instead of a government is just a semantics game. Representative Democratic Republics have the track record for being the most fair and most able to provide for it's citizens. Anarchy on the other hand has a track record of looting bombings and death.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 05:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Adherence to anarchism is willful ignorance of human nature. Drinking Beverage
Which is....?

Ok, let's suppose the human nature is really, really, deeply corrupt back-stabbing stone evil.
So let's elect some of these people as governors! Great idea Thumbsup I'm not sure if your position is projection or non-sequitur.

If Epicuros was an anarchist, this is what he'd say.
Are people bad? Then how can they make just laws?
Are people good? Then why do we need government?
Are some people good and some bad? Then how do we separate them?
Do evil people crave power? Then why put all the power in few hands?
If people are selfish, then how can in representative democracy few represent many?

Ah, the usual Lumi false characterization by extreme polarity. Dodgy

No, it is far more nuanced than that. People are imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent. Some are bad, some are good, most are in between.

We don't elect people to rule, we elect people to govern. Those are not the same thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-06-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 01:20 AM)apolemicist Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Adherence to anarchism is willful ignorance of human nature. Drinking Beverage

maybe if you can explain more clearly what your position is ... I don't know ...
I work better with explained statements rather than single sentences

Not everyone is trustworthy. Not everyone is empathetic. Not everyone is fair-minded.

There need to be agreed-upon bounds of behavior that are enforceable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 11:57 AM by dylio.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
Governments aren't the only power group in society. If they're removed from the top, somebody else will fight tooth and nail to get there. There has never been a society without people at the top, apart from small collectivist groups. The closest thing you can get is a Libertarian, but look how well that worked with the Tea Party! They were against government in the beginning, but got highjacked by the high-rollers pushing their purely corporate agenda.

The government isn't a bad thing. Its bad is when it silences its opposition and when it doesn't serve those it claims to represent. Its not bad when it allows its people to live free and safely, in that order.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dylio's post
22-06-2014, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 02:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 09:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ah, the usual Lumi false characterization by extreme polarity. Dodgy

No, it is far more nuanced than that. People are imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent. Some are bad, some are good, most are in between.

We don't elect people to rule, we elect people to govern. Those are not the same thing.
It pisses people off when I do that: No - you just did the thing of which you blame me. You characterized me with extreme polarity as someone who characterizes things with extreme polarity. I just take what you say and seek some sense in it, I run it through debug testing if it does compute. So far it doesn't.

If most people are in between, most governments will also be in between at the very best, some good some bad, plus additional costs on society for just having a government. How is that an improvement? How can government change people if it's made out of the same kind of people?

And I ask again, how do we separate fit people from unfit people to rule, govern, or whatever? By popular vote? If people aren't fit to be free, why are they good enough to vote? Will that make them any smarter? I don't think so, democracy is a massive subsidy to the sub-genius majority. It gives stupidity more power. Hell, it gives Christians more power.

By the way, as long as government controls currency, it is a rule of people through their money and labor, not governance. Ask IRS if you can pay taxes in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, which is not under the control of government.

(22-06-2014 11:21 AM)dylio Wrote:  Governments aren't the only power group in society. If they're removed from the top, somebody else will fight tooth and nail to get there. There has never been a society without people at the top, apart from small collectivist groups. The closest thing you can get is a Libertarian, but look how well that worked with the Tea Party! They were against government in the beginning, but got highjacked by the high-rollers pushing their purely corporate agenda.

The government isn't a bad thing. Its bad is when it silences its opposition and when it doesn't serve those it claims to represent. Its not bad when it allows its people to live free and safely, in that order.
Government gets to define who is its opposition Laugh out load It gets to make criminals out of people who have a wrong piece of vegetation in their pocket or who sell lemonade on the street. And why the hell it should ALLOW ITS people to live free and safely? It should have no option not to allow that. And it should have no "its people", people own themselves.
Anyway, the corporate agenda you speak of, who provides corporations their rights? Without government, corporations would be just people with full liability for their actions. And they would not get any subsidies or legal privileges as they do today. So Tea Party seems to be corrupt by government, by proxy of corporations.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 05:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Adherence to anarchism is willful ignorance of human nature. Drinking Beverage
Which is....?

Ok, let's suppose the human nature is really, really, deeply corrupt back-stabbing stone evil.

Why would you suppose that and what does it have to do with what he said?
Noone is claiming that humans are evil.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Winterwolf00's post
23-06-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 02:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 09:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ah, the usual Lumi false characterization by extreme polarity. Dodgy

No, it is far more nuanced than that. People are imperfect, unpredictable, inconsistent. Some are bad, some are good, most are in between.

We don't elect people to rule, we elect people to govern. Those are not the same thing.
It pisses people off when I do that: No - you just did the thing of which you blame me. You characterized me with extreme polarity as someone who characterizes things with extreme polarity. I just take what you say and seek some sense in it, I run it through debug testing if it does compute. So far it doesn't.

If most people are in between, most governments will also be in between at the very best, some good some bad, plus additional costs on society for just having a government. How is that an improvement? How can government change people if it's made out of the same kind of people?

And I ask again, how do we separate fit people from unfit people to rule, govern, or whatever? By popular vote? If people aren't fit to be free, why are they good enough to vote? Will that make them any smarter? I don't think so, democracy is a massive subsidy to the sub-genius majority. It gives stupidity more power. Hell, it gives Christians more power.

By the way, as long as government controls currency, it is a rule of people through their money and labor, not governance. Ask IRS if you can pay taxes in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency, which is not under the control of government.

(22-06-2014 11:21 AM)dylio Wrote:  Governments aren't the only power group in society. If they're removed from the top, somebody else will fight tooth and nail to get there. There has never been a society without people at the top, apart from small collectivist groups. The closest thing you can get is a Libertarian, but look how well that worked with the Tea Party! They were against government in the beginning, but got highjacked by the high-rollers pushing their purely corporate agenda.

The government isn't a bad thing. Its bad is when it silences its opposition and when it doesn't serve those it claims to represent. Its not bad when it allows its people to live free and safely, in that order.
Government gets to define who is its opposition Laugh out load It gets to make criminals out of people who have a wrong piece of vegetation in their pocket or who sell lemonade on the street. And why the hell it should ALLOW ITS people to live free and safely? It should have no option not to allow that. And it should have no "its people", people own themselves.
Anyway, the corporate agenda you speak of, who provides corporations their rights? Without government, corporations would be just people with full liability for their actions. And they would not get any subsidies or legal privileges as they do today. So Tea Party seems to be corrupt by government, by proxy of corporations.

FFS.

There are thousands of distinct and highly variable governments on this planet of ours.

To reify them all into a single abstracted monolithic ur-entity is a paranoid delusion.

Your repeatedly doing so is not exactly aiding your credibility.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(22-06-2014 02:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Anyway, the corporate agenda you speak of, who provides corporations their rights? Without government, corporations would be just people with full liability for their actions. And they would not get any subsidies or legal privileges as they do today. So Tea Party seems to be corrupt by government, by proxy of corporations.

And without Due Process of law what exactly is going to hold corporations accountable for anything?

What would prevent said corporations from just becoming the de-facto government?

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Ignorance about anarchism
(23-06-2014 10:27 AM)Winterwolf00 Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 02:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Anyway, the corporate agenda you speak of, who provides corporations their rights? Without government, corporations would be just people with full liability for their actions. And they would not get any subsidies or legal privileges as they do today. So Tea Party seems to be corrupt by government, by proxy of corporations.

And without Due Process of law what exactly is going to hold corporations accountable for anything?

What would prevent said corporations from just becoming the de-facto government?

Judging by past answers?
Magical Thinking™.
For when real-world problems are just too hard to solve!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: