Jump to: Board index
February 28th, 2008, 5:23 pm
June 25th, 2008, 10:58 am
Dreamshift wrote:We must have some system of governement, even if that means with no easily identified leaders or decision makers. I state this beacause we must have protection from people who seek to dominate others, or threats from forgien powers.\
June 26th, 2008, 4:37 pm
Dewey wrote:Dreamshift said: “We don't need some kind of leader/king/president, but a way to make sure we all agree on how we want to co-exist,”
The nearest we can come to a “way to make sure we all agree” is majority voting, is it not? If so, we’re talking about democracies, and if we agree that pure democracies (voting every decision and move) are impracticable, we must have representatives to coordinate and direct the operations so as to achieve our chosen objectives, must we not? These representatives deserve to be called leaders, do they not?
After carefully framing the above questions, I got that all-too-familiar feeling of a nitpicker. I generally agree with your ideas in this and the other threads of this forum. Good luck with the paper!
July 5th, 2008, 9:30 am
Celebration2000 wrote:How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?
March 13th, 2009, 9:05 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:REALLY GUYS???Anarchism [Def]: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose
You can't use anarchy as a guiding principle in life if its philosophy is to not adhere to a principle.
It's really, very simple.
Oh, and what the last poster is talking about, I think, sounds more like Libertarianism.
March 15th, 2009, 9:53 pm
Belinda wrote:Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals.
Within a system of anarchy who sets the guide lines and morals for the child?
March 16th, 2009, 12:51 pm
Belinda wrote:Parents set the guidelines for their children in every society. No matter what form of government is instated, the parents are the parents. It has been that way forever and will (hopefully) be that way no matter what form of government exists...or doesn't.
Who sets the morals and guidelines for parents?Are all parents moral parents?
March 20th, 2009, 11:13 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:What principles and codes? What personal guidelines? The true purpose of government is to protect the right to freedom. You argue that anarchy would be freedom, but freedom to do what?
If there were no law, people would be free to strip others of their freedoms (kill, rape, pillage, steal, etc.), which is the reason governments were created in the first place.
FOR ANARCHY TO WORK, PEOPLE MUST AGREE TO CERTAIN PRINCIPLES AND CODES. PRINCIPLES AND CODES ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS LAWS. LAWS ARE CREATED BY GENERAL CONSENSOUS (WHICH WE ALSO REFER TO AS THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS).
If you don't have a collection of individuals agreeing on principles that prohibit the infringement of basic rights (ie. life, liberty, and property) then the "natural order" you speak of will revert to evolutionary principles of dominance.
You said that animals have a natural order, and you're right. It revolves around survival. Survival is a product of competition. In nature, competition almost always creates A dominant figure/faction. Dominance is a form of leadership. When left to its own ends, nature will establish a leader.
Anarchy cannot exist.
You may define it any way you would like, but if you have principles, somebody must establish and protect them. Since they cannot be commonplace, only the individual can protect them. Assuming there is ONE member of a population who's principles are to not regard another's principles as valid, one will eventually dominate/destroy another.
If you define anarchy as having no "common principles", an anarchist society would never be able to agree to establish itself.
Please tell me what point I'm missing, because this seems extremely simple to me.
March 20th, 2009, 11:21 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:ANARCHY EXCLUDES MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ANY PHILOSOPHY, AND ON ANY SET OF PRINCIPLES! END OF STORY!
March 20th, 2009, 11:33 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:What is the state comprised of? From where does it derive its evil?
I am very confused to wonder how Anarchists can conceive that individuals are good, but individuals together are bad, when individuals have only survived the test of time BECAUSE they have banded together.
So you're willing to depend on the "inate morality of a people free to do anything" ... but disavow government, which is a collection of people, who chose of free will, to join together to do something?
March 24th, 2009, 6:03 pm
And here is where I think the break-down is occuring. I think your definition of anarchy is really just a misconception. This is really a definition of libertarianism.
My contention is that anarchy is an ill-defined philosophy. Its precepts are covered subtantially in other, more well-developed theories, and its conclusions are ultimately vague.
If we were to discard all labels and names for what we're talking about, I think we could probably come to *some* kind of resolution on what we think would be a workable form of society.
“You can be free only if I am free.”
March 26th, 2009, 6:59 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:One quick point I thought about ...
The community can act as a governing body, right? My question is, how do they decide to get together for this bake sale? Who determines the manner in which they may set up? Who sets the guidelines for what's appropriate and what isn't?
Here's the problem. Who enforces those rules?
The struggle for liberty requires not only a fight against tyranny in practice, but also against tyranny in waiting.
March 29th, 2009, 10:49 am
whitetrshsoldier wrote:So if somebody infringes upon my right, say by coming up and taking my neighbor's baked goods (and profits) by gunpoint, may I reciprocate? What if he does it with arms that are greater than mine (say, automatic weapons with armor piercings rounds). This may be exaggerating, but it has happened, and does happen (see Mexico). What do you do in a situation like this?
My point is that tyranny will rear its evil head at some point, and somebody will need to be there to fight it. The individual will not always be capable of defending him/herself against all enemies. This is where you need a common, well-armed collective force. The only true reason for government.
March 31st, 2009, 6:32 pm
whitetrshsoldier wrote:So what you're saying is all we have to do is indoctrinate children from birth to deny their primal instinct for dominance?
Sounds pretty simple.
You're telling me that in order to develop a society capable of sustaining anarchism, you would REQUIRE the violation the very principle you consider elementary to your philosophy by brainwashing children.
Which brings us back to the point that anarchy is self-defeating in nature, and will never exist.
A perfect society would cease to advance, as there is no point improving on utopia.