Anarchism

Dewey · Post by **Dewey** » March 12th, 2009, 11:44 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:REALLY GUYS???

Anarchism [Def]: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

I think virtually all of us, anarchists and non-anarchists alike, can agree this definition of anarchism is inadequate.. But we probably can’t agree about much more in this entire thread!

It’s not our fault. We have tried hard and have come up with a lot of good thoughts about different subjects. Please note I say “different subjects”. What I mean is that each of us has talked about anarchism as each of us defines it, and no two of us seem to define it the same way We are vainly trying to deal with a bunch of subjects that has a generic name but no definitive meaning. Our individual definitions are different, so our conclusions are incomparable.

Hey, you anarchists! Decide what you really want. This here anarchism kinda sounds like it might be worth considering. Let us know just what the heck it is.

anarchyisbliss · Post by **anarchyisbliss** » 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.

That's not what anarchy means. Maybe the dictionary says so, but true anarchy is simply the freedom to do what you feel is best to be done. Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals. Anarchy is the absence of law, a constitution, a capital, bureaucracy, etc. Not a lack of order. By nature, animals are orderly creatures and if we woke up tomorrow and the government just quit, then we would still have our own order that we would establish within ourselves.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » March 14th, 2009, 4:11 am

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?

Dewey · Post by **Dewey** » March 14th, 2009, 12:30 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?

Allow me to extend Belinda's question and ask who sets the guide lines and morals for the child and the (all-too-common) child-like adult?

anarchyisbliss · Post by **anarchyisbliss** » 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?

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.

It would be the same in an anarchical society.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » March 16th, 2009, 3:30 am

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?

Martin Ekdahl · Post by **Martin Ekdahl** » March 16th, 2009, 12:17 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?

Well.. Joseph Fritzl is a perfect example that not all parents are moral.

anarchyisbliss · Post by **anarchyisbliss** » 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?

Does any other form of government ensure that parents are moral? The parents get their morals from their parents, and so on. No form of government could prevent bad parents from happening, or could protect children from bad influences.

whitetrshsoldier · Post by **whitetrshsoldier** » March 16th, 2009, 2:13 pm

Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals. Anarchy is the absence of law, a constitution, a capital, bureaucracy, etc. Not a lack of order. By nature, animals are orderly creatures and if we woke up tomorrow and the government just quit, then we would still have our own order that we would establish within ourselves.

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.

Martin Ekdahl · Post by **Martin Ekdahl** » March 17th, 2009, 1:17 pm

whitetrshsoldier wrote:
Anarchists hold to many principles and codes, and still follow a strict set of personal guidelines and morals. Anarchy is the absence of law, a constitution, a capital, bureaucracy, etc. Not a lack of order. By nature, animals are orderly creatures and if we woke up tomorrow and the government just quit, then we would still have our own order that we would establish within ourselves.
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 dominant/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.

Well, You might have a point there. I think the main problem with the vision of anarchy is the word "Power". Many anarchists have a great problem with this. Power is something evil for, a ivory tower that must be destroyed. But the power is also something else. It is central in our behavior. People seeks power. People need power. If you don't have power, then someone else will take power over you. How can you be free of oppression if you don't have power over your own situation? When does your power become oppressive? Who will stop you from extending your personal power to rule over others?

whitetrshsoldier · Post by **whitetrshsoldier** » March 17th, 2009, 4:41 pm

PREFACE:

I've been told by several people in two different posts that I am mis-defining anarchism. Vlad, a registered user, provided the following two definitions to the group in defense of anarchy, so I addressed them both. You can find the original post under Ethics and Morality -> Consent and Capitalism.

1. "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

The absence of government, and a state of lawlessness could only occur if everybody AGREED to be anarchist. Collective agreement is also known as democracy. Can't have democracy and anarchy at the same time, can we?

2. "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

If I have absolute liberty, then I'm free to kill you, and dispose of your inadequate philosophy. I like how the definition notes [without the implication of disorder]. If there is no disorder, there is order. How is the order established? By nature? If nature dictates it, it's not "absolute liberty".

Anarchism is self-defeating in principle.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » March 18th, 2009, 4:40 am

If I have absolute liberty, then I'm free to kill you, and dispose of your inadequate philosophy. I like how the definition notes [without the implication of disorder]. If there is no disorder, there is order. How is the order established? By nature? If nature dictates it, it's not "absolute liberty".

When morality is codified it becomes an ethical and then a legal system. A legal system is enforced by governmental or religious sanctions against law breakers.

The reason for codifying morality is to bind individuals in a tribe or nation together so that the tribe or nation is stronger because it is composed of cooperating individuals.Any tribe or nation that is composed of non-cooperating individuals will fail in intertribal or international competition. This is sufficient reason to show that anarchy won't work.

Utopia would be anarchic because every individual would obey the Golden Rule, and be reared in such a way as to as to feel empathy for every other individual. We are not yet in a state of Utopia.

whitetrshsoldier · Post by **whitetrshsoldier** » March 19th, 2009, 5:41 pm

Utopia would be anarchic because every individual would obey the Golden Rule, and be reared in such a way as to as to feel empathy for every other individual. We are not yet in a state of Utopia.

Belinda:

How, in an Anarchic society (even if it is Utopia), did WE AGREE TO OBEY THE GOLDEN RULE!!!! I'm honestly reaching my wit's end on this one.

ANARCHY EXCLUDES MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ANY PHILOSOPHY, AND ON ANY SET OF PRINCIPLES! END OF STORY!

Dewey · Post by **Dewey** » March 20th, 2009, 12:18 am

[quote=ANARCHY EXCLUDES MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ANY PHILOSOPHY, AND ON ANY SET OF PRINCIPLES! END OF STORY![/quote]

Unintentionally perhaps, you seem to have also replied to a previous post of mine about all the different definitions given to anarchy. Your explanation is anarchists don’t mutually agree on any philosophy or set of principles.. So that’s it!

Seriously, however, don’t you think that the anarchist holds forth a principle when he says he's willing to depend on the inate morality of a people free to do anything they individually wish to do?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » March 20th, 2009, 3:51 am

soldier, I must have been assuming that anarchy is lack of codified laws, but rests on morality which may be based on traditional precepts, philosophical precepts, or natural human social sense.

Dewey has cleared it up for me with his comment on what you wrote.