An argument on why anarchy doesn't work

[Alucard483]

TheDelinquent Wrote:As for your stormship troopers... sounds like you've got the perfect little state in your mind. I love the perversion of verbiage that is "millitary service". Exactly how is killing for your state equivilant to dying for your nation? And why is murder not a crime in this one particular instance? Sounds pretty irrational to me.

Military service does not mean that you will automaticaly be killing. The military is a BIG prospect with LOTS of other jobs such as mechanics, planing, intell interpretaion, coding, enginering, navigator, the list goes ON AND ON. Killing does not always come with the job.
Its not murder, its fair game, they are armed and have intent to kill you.

As for dying for ones country, would you consider a death in the name of anarchy justafiable if they were fighting to overthrow the 'evil, corrupt, unjust' government.

Not all things are rational anyway, anarchy isnt and yet you hold it true.

[rAnx]

Quote:Yeah, funny stuff, the anarchists let them be. They didn't go near the property owner that didn't want to "communize", they let them go about their business.

Point taken. However, it was still the existence of other ideologies that basically led to their downfall. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's all about absolutes, an all or nothing proposition.

Quote:Neither can Statism, unless you're holding my ideology to higher standards than your own. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Are you implying I support government intervention? If so, that's hardly an accurate description of what I believe. Obviously, it's a tough position to clearly define in one sentence, but in that amount of space and regarding only a social aspect, I believe in government intervention only to the extent to which those who commit crimes can expect consequences for their actions. Crime, in this case, referring to the violation of another's rights.

Quote:A bit self-refuting, don't you think? Don't put words in my mouth. I said he lied, and you agreed with me. I told him to stop it, and you lied too.

Neither he nor I lied. What I was trying to say and he was trying to get across was that while none of the things he mentioned are tenants of the anarchist ideology, they could still result from those who aren't anarchists and are willing to prey on the good faith and optimism of those who are. It's because of bad people that the things he said could likely happen, not because it's what anarchists believe. And that's not a lie.

Quote:Anarchy an ideology of ABSOLUTES? Good lord. You're shifting the burden of justification here, for your my version of anarchy to work, all the people have to do is agree that this particular State, indeed all particular States, are wrong.

And another thing, exactly what "Dark Desires" would be forbidden? No desire is forbidden, anarchy is a place where everyone is allowed to tell the truth to everyone else without fear of getting in trouble for it.

You said that "It's up to you to prove sadistic desires can't be channeled into better outlets than crime, and you're saying psychological deviations can't be prevented or treated. That's it." Hypothetically, what happens when one person slips through the cracks? What happens when such deviations are hidden? If there's no system to provide recourse for the aftermath of their criminal actions, then there's a problem. What I'm saying isn't that psychological deviations can't be prevented or treated, I'm saying it's unrealistic to believe that we're going to find every single one before bad stuff happens, and that it's unrealistic to think we can cure every person if they do commit a criminal act. The world's not perfect, mistakes are made, and anarchism will not fix that.

And regarding absolutes, yeah, the way you're painting it pretty much makes it seem like it has to be a world of absolutes if the community is going to be of any significant size. Everyone has to believe the message; the Spaniards were not unified in this way, hence the short duration of anarchistic society there. Nobody can desire power, lest the civilian equality is thrown out of sync. Outside forces cannot want what the anarchists have; again, Spain in '36.

Basically, my whole beef with the system is that it seems to be one that is much too rooted in good will and optimism to make me believe it is viable over any longevity. Whether in anarchy itself or the transition into it, I don't have faith enough in humanity to believe that there won't be someone who takes advantage of said optimism and perverts it for amoral causes.

[TheDelinquent]

"I believe in government intervention only to the extent to which those who commit crimes can expect consequences for their actions. Crime, in this case, referring to the violation of another's rights."

Congratulations, you're one ideological step short of anarchy:
Holding everyone to the same standards.

"Neither he nor I lied. What I was trying to say and he was trying to get across was that while none of the things he mentioned are tenants of the anarchist ideology, they could still result from those who aren't anarchists and are willing to prey on the good faith and optimism of those who are. It's because of bad people that the things he said could likely happen, not because it's what anarchists believe. And that's not a lie."

Well, you said that I called him a fascist. I didn't. That's really all I meant.

"Hypothetically, what happens when one person slips through the cracks? What happens when such deviations are hidden? If there's no system to provide recourse for the aftermath of their criminal actions, then there's a problem. What I'm saying isn't that psychological deviations can't be prevented or treated, I'm saying it's unrealistic to believe that we're going to find every single one before bad stuff happens, and that it's unrealistic to think we can cure every person if they do commit a criminal act. The world's not perfect, mistakes are made, and anarchism will not fix that."

Ah! Notice how you surreptitiously transplanted 'deviations' and 'criminal actions' in that line of logic there. No anarchists are arguing that humans are perfect. We, of all people, know that they are not, arguably more than any other. We argue they don't need to be. You say it's unrealistic to believe that we're going to find every single one (criminalopaths) before 'bad stuff' happens? I say it's unwise not to try. "Try" meaning speak to them with the same respect for truth or mutual happiness as we speak to everyone else. "psychological" problems are medical problems, they should be treated medically, not retributively.

[TheDelinquent]

"Military service does not mean that you will automaticaly be killing. The military is a BIG prospect with LOTS of other jobs such as mechanics, planing, intell interpretaion, coding, enginering, navigator, the list goes ON AND ON. Killing does not always come with the job.
Its not murder, its fair game, they are armed and have intent to kill you.

As for dying for ones country, would you consider a death in the name of anarchy justifiable if they were fighting to overthrow the 'evil, corrupt, unjust' government."

A few points here - first, while it may be true killing isn't assured when one joins the government, it still occurs and it is still given the thumbs-up. As for, 'it's not murder, they are armed and have intent to kill you' - isn't that what 'they' are thinking too? And if 'they' were, wouldn't they be in YOUR territory raiding YOUR homes screwing YOU up? I say, don't go for your gun until ya see the whites of their eyes, and don't shoot until they've shot you. And for that, you need no State. You need a well-informed populace enjoying equal opportunity to arm themselves. Anarchism does not say, 'let us eliminate some states but let others around'. It says, all people, abandon ALL states! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Bear it aloft, O roaring flame! Skyward aloft, where all may see! Slaves of the world, our cause is the same! One is the struggle, and in one name - Manhood! We battle to set men free!
...ehem.
I do not consider killing in the name of anything moral. Whether it is justifiable is a purely subjective consideration, depending upon one's perception of each scenario.

And no, I'm not using the quote button. Oh well.

"Not all things are rational anyway, anarchy isnt and yet you hold it true."

Anarchy is a description of an envisioned society. When you say I hold it true, you speak inaccurately. I hold it the best of all possible worlds. Saying anarchy isn't rational is also a bit ambiguous. If by rational, you mean internally consistant, then yes, it is.

[Alucard483]

TheDelinquent Wrote:I say, don't go for your gun until ya see the whites of their eyes, and don't shoot until they've shot you.

So, sit around with your thumb up your ass until its to late to do anything. Government tried that once, it was called appeasment, it resulted in WWII.

Delinquint Wrote:I do not consider killing in the name of anything moral.

So, if the chance presented itself you would not take up arms in a chance to 'make a difffrence?'

The point still stands, anarchy CAN NOT LAST. A new government will ALWAYS rise from the ashes.

[Alucard483]

PIMP. Wrote:I say we get all the war mongering bastards and all the corrupt politicians and all the Greedy Zillionaires and all the religious fanatics and send them all to Alaska. They can have tea and play Risk at Akdons house.

Sounds fun, where do I sign up?

[TheDelinquent]

"So, sit around with your thumb up your ass until its to late to do anything. Government tried that once, it was called appeasment, it resulted in WWII."

The solution to WW2 didn't rest in people following the Warhawks advice in the 40's, it rested in people following the dove's advice in the 10's.

Also, the oppressed in the concentration camps were deprived of the weaponry and liberty that I said would requisite anarchy.
That's not a thumb up anyone's ass.
States will arise for as long as you and others like you want them too, Alucard. Believe it or not, it is your choice.

[akdonn]

PIMP: We already have all of those kinds in Alaska. We also have other kinds of nuts I won't bother to mention...

Alucard483: Do you like to fish? If you should come to Alaska I might take you out on my boat...

[Alucard483]

Delinquint Wrote:The solution to WW2 didn't rest in people following the Warhawks advice in the 40's, it rested in people following the dove's advice in the 10's.

Solution? Who said anything about the solution, I said the problem. Also, what do the camps have to do with anything

akdonn Wrote:Alucard483: Do you like to fish? If you should come to Alaska I might take you out on my boat...

Actually yes, Im an avide fisherman. In june Im going deep sea fishing in florida.

[akdonn]

We'll be catching salmon and halibut in Prince William Sound or Resurrection Bay. I'm nuts about fishing.

[PIMP.]

a little bit off topic but u guys kinda veered away first:

A while back there was this series on tv about the crab fisherman in alaska. It was an awesome show. Those guys are machines. That would be fun but the kind of fishing with the worm and the hook = BORING!

[liq3]

From what I've read anarchy seems to be this. I'm gonna check wiki and google after posting this btw.

Anarchy seems to be total self-freedom. Everything you do is voluntary...

This raises a question for me (which I may find the answer to myself). Lets say theres this patch of land. Now lets say Bob starts growing plants there. What happens if Jill steals those plants?

[Eidolon]

Bob goes and gets his plants back.

[liq3]

Eidolon Wrote:Bob goes and gets his plants back.

What if Jill doesn't want to give em back?

[Eidolon]

Bob will come back with community support.

[liq3]

Eidolon Wrote:Bob will come back with community support.

Yep I can see where this leads. Ok that'd work.

Another question. What would happen if a group of say 100 people, decided to start attacking and threatening people? They have weapons btw. Like bows and knives and maybe guns.

P.S. Actually nevermind, don't bother replying to this post. I figured it out myself xD

[TheDelinquent]

"Solution? Who said anything about the solution, I said the problem. Also, what do the camps have to do with anything."

You said that sitting around with your thumb up your ass is stupid. I agreed with you, saying that any anarchy should be prepared to defend itself. I then offered you an EXAMPLE of how self-defense is deprived in many States (the concentration camps of WW2).

[Alucard483]

TheDelinquent Wrote:You said that sitting around with your thumb up your ass is stupid. I agreed with you, saying that any anarchy should be prepared to defend itself. I then offered you an EXAMPLE of how self-defense is deprived in many States (the concentration camps of WW2).

The concentration camps are shit examples because they are PRISONS. EVERYONE in prison wants out and to have retribution. To another degree, do you WANT killers and rapests and molestes to walk free? Becasue thats the way you are going right now

[TheDelinquent]

The fact that the camps were prisons proves nothing but my point - unless you'd like to argue the prisoners deserved it. They were deprived of the right to self-defense - which is what you erroneously suggested I opposed.

"do you WANT killers and rapists and molesters to walk free? Because thats the way you are going right now"

I WANT killers and rapists and molesters to stop killing, raping and molesting. More important is to encourage that parents raise their children well enough and in a prosperous enough environment that there will be no more killers, rapists, and molesters. The vast majority of criminals are kids who were neglected and mistreated by irresponsible parents, who had nowhere else to turn but a shit system that glorifies the rich and vilifies the poor.
Lest ye forget, killers and rapists and murderers are just independently operated tyrannies. Of course I hate them.

[Alucard483]

TheDelinquent Wrote:I WANT killers and rapists and molesters to stop killing, raping and molesting. More important is to encourage that parents raise their children well enough and in a prosperous enough environment that there will be no more killers, rapists, and molesters. The vast majority of criminals are kids who were neglected and mistreated by irresponsible parents, who had nowhere else to turn but a shit system that glorifies the rich and vilifies the poor.
Lest ye forget, killers and rapists and murderers are just independently operated tyrannies. Of course I hate them.

dude parents cant even parent WITH a government, why would not having one change anything

[TheDelinquent]

Most obviously, the abandonment of mandated school attendance means:
More time at home.
Secondly, parents are a diverse group of people. Many (the vast majority) believe in methods of "parenting" that suggest a parent has rights afforded to them by virtue of the fact that they and another person fucked. This of course is a deleterious belief, and arguably the cause of all social problems, if not government or the state itself.
Even taking that into consideration however, the fact that bad parents exist does not legitimize the presence of the State any more than does the existence of bad teachers legitimize the existence of Gulag schools (or any required school).

[akdonn]

Don't expect abandonment of manditory attendance any time soon. Society has an interest in knowing where all young people are when parents are having to work. The home school movement has expanded some boundaries but the more young people get in trouble with the law the more likely laws will change to require better supervision.

Further, the statement: "Many (the vast majority) believe in methods of "parenting" that suggest a parent has rights afforded to them by virtue of the fact that they and another person fucked." is an ignorant statement. Parents are responsible for their children as dependents and can be held accountable for what they do.

"The State" is an arrangement established by a constitution, a well-defined structure of Administration, and a body of laws created by persons elected to make and assure the enforcement of those laws. People who don't like that can make a choice: play by the rules or face the consequences. It's pretty simple.

[TheDelinquent]

akdonn Wrote:Further, the statement: "Many (the vast majority) believe in methods of "parenting" that suggest a parent has rights afforded to them by virtue of the fact that they and another person fucked." is an ignorant statement. Parents are responsible for their children as dependents and can be held accountable for what they do.

Please READ the statements I post before you respond. Parents are responsible for their children, of course. What I said is that they are not entitled to any extra rights because they have one.
As for them being "held accountable", why? Why not hold the child accountable? Accountable for what? I say that each person is accountable for themselves, no matter the age. It is the parent's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure their children understand that.

"Don't expect abandonment of mandatory attendance any time soon. Society has an interest in knowing where all young people are when parents are having to work. The home school movement has expanded some boundaries but the more young people get in trouble with the law the more likely laws will change to require better supervision."

I fail to see how this is even an argument. It is more like a social forecast. You might be right, you might be wrong. You certainly can't say with any certainty (and don't try to say you can).

""The State" is an arrangement established by a constitution, a well-defined structure of Administration, and a body of laws created by persons elected to make and assure the enforcement of those laws. People who don't like that can make a choice: play by the rules or face the consequences. It's pretty simple."

Argumentum ad baculum.
Again, you're describing whilst ignoring my prescriptions. I know damn well what the State is. I know damn well what society's interests are. It's simple, alright. Simply ridiculous. I am not here to play by the rules or face YOUR consequences. You want to know what the consequences are? Here they are:
If I don't eat, I will starve.
If I don't drink, I will dehydrate.
If I murder with wild abandon, people will hate me and rightfully so.

YOUR (the State's) consequences are applied in retribution, upon things that 50% of the time are not even crimes. This is what I mean when I say anarchism is a war against ignorance. It is a war against the idea that ANY individual has the right to say what goes for another, whether that person is rich, poor, famous, unknown, or really pretty. A criminal has just as much a right to murder as a soldier does - NONE.
But at least the criminal does it for his own gain, rather than some other sap's!

[Alucard483]

TheDelinquent Wrote:Please READ the statements I post before you respond. Parents are responsible for their children, of course. What I said is that they are not entitled to any extra rights because they have one.
As for them being "held accountable", why? Why not hold the child accountable? Accountable for what? I say that each person is accountable for themselves, no matter the age. It is the parent's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure their children understand that.

TheDelinquent Wrote:YOUR (the State's) consequences are applied in retribution, upon things that 50% of the time are not even crimes.

20 laws right now that feel are unjustly founded.

TheDelinquent Wrote:This is what I mean when I say anarchism is a war against ignorance.

No it is a war of ifnorance. If laws are suddenly abolished people will be running wild. Think what stops MOST crimes from being commited? Prison time. If suddenly it becomes ok to beat and rape women, the rate at which women are beat and raped is going to go up. If suddenly there is no law against murder people will kill with no consequence. THINK ABOUT IT!

[TheDelinquent]

"Think what stops MOST crimes from being committed? Prison time. If suddenly it becomes OK to beat and rape women, the rate at which women are beat and raped is going to go up."

This is a complete straw man - I just told you that anarchists oppose murder. Yet you continue to posit scenarios of murder and rape, ad hoc.

All law is government (at least it's excuse), but not all government is law. Like I said, murderers or rapists would not be tolerated in anarchy because they are governors - they dictate to another person what will or will not happen to an undue degree, ignoring their say in the matter.
Now, prison itself is a... diverse institution. I am not arguing that reforming criminals is a bad thing. But PUNISHING them is, as all evidence has pointed to time and time again.
The most any person could argue was necessary is for some people (those governors) to not be allowed access to other people. But even that assertion hinges critically on the assumption that sadism and government are hardwired into the illustrious "human nature", and will always exist (incidentally, even that logic wouldn't hold divinely true - it's not like the human genome can't be manipulated).

I'm not saying "throw open every prison door right this minute!".
I'm saying educate the people, all people, anyone who will listen, on the principles of anarchism, solidarity, and equality of opportunity.
Humen are the knowing animal. Homo sapien. When we realize it is what we preach that shapes what others excuse, and that all must be held to the same ethical standards, we realize anarchism. The name given to a struggle for a society wherein each actor possesses a say in each action equivalent to the degree it affects them.
That, by definition, excludes rape and murder.
When this cause is championed by enough people, anarchists will no longer be a misunderstood minority, we will be a majority - and something tells me the currently huge prison population will be a whole lot less, until at last it is not at all.

BTW, as far as retributive justice is concerned, I notice an apt quote is displaying on the side bar:
""Why do humans kill humans who killed humans to show humans, that killing is wrong?"