Happy Beltane!
Pages
| Author | Topic: Happy Beltane! |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 19:30
Profile
Homepage
Wow. This is a very convincing argument. Now I feel really uncertain about what's going to happen in the future, which is probably completely justified. And also, you could probably go back considerably less in time (say, fifty years) and ask people about interracial marriage and get just as negative a response. -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, May 5 2004 19:42
Profile
Homepage
150 years is long enough that even the bomb-throwing anarchists of their day -- Garrison &c -- would find the concept ludicrous. 'Yes, anarchy is a fine idea, but it would never work' is used much the same way. Those in the 'it will never happen' camp would do best to do a good job of explaining why, and accounting for the fact that a lot of things that would never have happened had you asked about them long enough ago have come to pass. -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 05:27
Profile
Anarchy has been tried before throughout the course of history - every time a government has collapsed. The outcome? People quickly form a new government because it's *safer.* Russia's popular democracy will corrupt to mobocracy, but it's still distinct from anarchy. It's certainly not Putin's or the Duma's goal to achieve anarchy through their governance. Anarchy is the absolute lack of government, and that cannot be good. Think about it. In absolute anarchy, no one has any authority over anyone else beyond what they can force another to do. Might Makes Right, or to quote the Athenians in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War": "[T]he strong do as they like, while the weak suffer what they must." Doesn't sound like a good deal to me. Are people inherantly better than that? I don't think so. Think about how kids treat one another when there's no authority around. Ever been bullied? "Yeah, but kids grow out of that." Why? Because they learn that there are consequences for their actions *if they are caught*. In a state of anarchy, there is no *being caught*, unless someone stronger than them decides he doesn't like the cut of their jib, so to speak. I'm not an atheist; that being said, it doesn't strike me that God takes a very active role in regulating us down on Earth. Whether we will all be judged after we die according to our actions now, that doesn't seem to be a very strong incentive for people to behave absent a governing force other than God, and no one seems to be behaving anyway. To believe that anarchy could work is to exercise in utopian illusion. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 06:13
Profile
I've had this argument before on these boards: the political philosophy form of anarchy is not simply the absence of government. Political anarchists do not just believe in bringing down the government for the sake of it. The anarchists I have met are generally not idealists, and their certainly not of a utopian persuasion. Political anarchy is not about getting rid of government full stop, but shrinking it down to a tiny scale - community based committees running things, rather then a central government who knows little about the villages and towns they are governing. I don't personally subscribe to this philosophy - my two major problems being that it would be too easy for capitalism to sneak in, in a decentralized state and that it would lead to the stagnation of human knowledge and culture. However, to dismiss it off the cuff as you do, probably with little knowledge of the actual arguments involved in the argument, is not a wise thing to do. [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 06:14: Message edited by: Morgan ] -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 06:46
Profile
Sounds to me as though you're talking about libertarianism as opposed to anarchy. anarchy - \An"arch*y\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. anarchie. See Anarch.] 1. Absence of government; the state of society where there is no law or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; political confusion. Spread anarchy and terror all around. --Cowper. 2. Hence, confusion or disorder, in general. There being then . . . an anarchy, as I may term it, in authors and their re?koning of years. --Fuller. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. I still don't believe it would work. Communities grow and expand. As they do, they run low on their own resources (e.g. a farmer's land can only be split among his sons so many ways before the divisions are useless) and so start eyeballing other communities' stuff. Without wider regulation, this arrangement will lead to conflict. Native American tribes, for example, went to war all the time over territory. It's also not economically efficient, and would promote an incredibly low standard of living and health, because none of the communities would be able to specialize to the degree that society can now for industries to form that produce neat things like cancer medications and anime.  I think it may be the case that a lot of the pro-anarchy points on this board come from people who are still dependent on their parents. It's easy to make an argument that a system of no rules is better when all one's needs are provided for by someone else. I'm willing to bet though that once you are out on your own supporting yourself, paying off your own car, house, etc. you'll have a greater appreciation for the protections modern government provides. This certainly has been the case for me! Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 06:48
Profile
Homepage
Looking through a handful of definitions of anarchy, I think it's clear that the word encompasses both: 1. A total lack of any kind of government or societal order, or 2. A society based enormously on self-determination and voluntary associations for its political, social, and all other functions. (The other definition) 1 is pretty stupid. 2 may not be. EDIT: Not entirely directed at you, Morgan. [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 09:29: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 07:13
Profile
I'm not disputing that - however, Andrew Miller could have had the presence of mind to interpret Alec's comment on anarchy as meaning the second definition. -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 09:37
Profile
EDIT: Rethinking... [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:08: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 09:45
Profile
I may be fairly rare in terms of Spiderweb, but I'm one of the few on the left here who doesn't support a change in the government system - I don't believe simply a change in the system would solve all of life's problems. I'm a socialist at heart. I don't believe that anarchists truly have a problem with community committees over-arching to provide services like water and sanitation - it doesn't violate the anarchist's principles. I fail to see what you base the belief that "it won't work" on. I'm surprised you haven't wheeled out the tired old statement - "But anarchists don't believe in law! Everyone will start killing each other if we don't have law! DUH!!" I'm not an advocate of anarchism, never will be. But the problems you cite about anarchism are not the valid ones. I'd also like to say, that in Britain, Rupert Murdoch has far more political sway then half of the ruling party. [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 09:46: Message edited by: Morgan ] -------------------- KazeArctica: "Imagine...wangs everywhere...and tentacles. Nothing but wangs and tentacles! And no pants!" Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 09:57
Profile
EDIT: Okay, bearing in mind a definition of anarchism as support for community-based government... I still don't believe it could work. The city-states of the Italian peninsula back in the day when Rome was founded fit this definition, and they still eventually allied together or were forced under one government. The fact is that communities expand, and as they do, they require more resources. It's inevitable that communities will come into conflict in disputes over resources. When that happens, war occurs, which to me is not a good thing. Does anyone disagree? [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 10:18: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 11:14
Profile
Homepage
YES. You overgeneralize that community anarchy will only work on the small scale. ie. you can only get so many to agree. You also overgeneralize that the only way for them to get anything done is through agressive acts. You sir, are a barbarian. There are such things as people agreeing with each other. Not trying to kill each other. There are such things as territorial equivilents of mergers. The problem is defintion. If everyone came together to agree on something, it could still be anarchism. There are undoubtably people who would disagree with this but, what the hey. It becomes governance when you have people to represent you, full time, and agree on issues themselves. ie. you elect them, they decide. This is governance. But where you get to a large enough scale, anarchy becomes complicated. It would not be practical for everyone to come together and decide. In this case, they can decide in their own areas and have people bring those decisions together to see what has been decided. This is still anarchy. But complex anarchy. Just because it has not yet been done does not make it impossible. Alec's comments are the best example in this thread. Morgan: you are a rarity in that case. I do believe that altering the government it could be better. I do not, however, believe that a change will "overnight" make everything better. Nor is it likely to make everything better, it can in some areas make things worse. Starfyre: Yes, you did get the point. Being that most people don't want the sort life that anarchy entails so aren't seriously trying. And once again: why on Earth do I keep arguing FOR it, when I'm not even an anarchist?! -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 11:35
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is direct democracy, not anarchism. I am under the impression that the two are not the same, even if they share certain things in common. If the group's decisions are binding on individuals, the system is not grounded in the principles of anarchism. EDIT: quote:And this is representative democracy. Specifically, these are caucuses. The Democratic Party (but not the Republicans, I think) in the United States uses this method in some states to determine its nominee for president. [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 11:50
Profile
Homepage
Yes and no. In some cases (like the sort I meant, water, food etc.) there is no issue of it being binding, more a wish for agreement on how to deal with a problem. In the sort of case you specify, no, it would not be anarchy if any decision tried to "bind" anyone to that decision. This I think is why you are mixing what I say with forms of democracy. To the second, I ask this; would it REALLY be practical to have a population of, say, 10,000 all trying to discuss things in the same place at the same time? No. What I said was that they could decide it in smaller groups and have some people say what what those groups thought. However, yes, it would not be anarchy if it tried to get people to submit to the will. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 6 2004 12:12
Profile
"You overgeneralize that community anarchy will only work on the small scale. ie. you can only get so many to agree." I wouldn't call it an over-generalization. For anything to be accomplished on a large scale, individuals have to give up some personal freedom and become responsible and accountable. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that anyone will live up to their end of the bargain, because everyone wants to get more for less, and everyone wants to freeload when possible. It's not a pretty picture of humanity, but I think it's accurate. I bet you've pirated software before, and justified your action by saying that "its creators charged too much for it," but it's still freeloading. Welcome to humanity. "You sir, are a barbarian." Perhaps I am. I guess it's a good thing you have your government in place to protect you from me! "There are such things as people agreeing with each other. Not trying to kill each other. There are such things as territorial equivilents of mergers." True, but there is also greed and exploitation. The republican system of government acknowledges their existence and is based on keeping them in check as best possible. In the definition of anarchism laid down in the link above, this problem seems to be side-stepped. Anarchism sounds a little too enlightened to work, ever. I don't claim to be enlightened, and I would hazard a guess that no one else on this board really is either, let alone the wider world population. What it seems to require more than anything else is trust, and if you don't trust people now in a system designed to keep anyone from hurting you too much, how will you ever trust them without those laws? [ Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:20: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 12:46
Profile
I don't personally believe that at present anarchy could succeed. Therefore I'll limit myself to a few points. The city-states of the Italian peninsula (I presume you mean Magna Graecia, since the Samnites and co. were rather more agrarian, although I don't quite see why using Greece would have made a different) were largely tyrannies and oligarchies and the democracy of the Greeks was still too refracted by the prism of their society to be anywhere near anarchy. Alec, as to the atheism, I might mention the name Protagoras. However, after Christianity atheism had few devotees, so I take the point. As to the slavery, the Church pretty much wiped out slavery of fellow Christians during the Middle Ages. Of course, in much of Europe, you'd still have had serfdom and the like. Nevertheless, 500 years ago slavery would only have been practiced to any great degree by the Barbary Pirates and when it first rose to prominence it was mostly to solve a labour problem and nobody ever pretended it was morally good. -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 12:50
Profile
Homepage
You continue to assume too much. How do you even come to these conclusions? You have no faith in people. It's not a question of responsibility or accontability, but instead a question of "community justice". If you have a thief in an anarchic community, you have no police force to protect you. You do, however, have many people who are interested in "not being next". Community Justice. You may be a barbarian, but I need no protection whatsoever from you. Governmental or otherwise. I have never pirated software. I have never pirated something for that reason. I would claim enlightenment. I claim a human enlightenment. All humans behave in a certain way. All humans follow the paths. This is my humanics. Trust is unecessary. A goal is all that is required. Anyway, those "laws" that you speak so high of... they're more like guidelines... and therein lies the choice. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 13:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:Some white Southerners (particularly towards the 1850's) did in fact argue that slavery was not a necessary evil, as Jefferson said, but a positive good (John C. Calhoun, among others). I'm not sure if that "when it first rose to prominence" is modifying both clauses or just the first one, though. In the former case, your statement is true as is. FBM, your community justice gives rise to lynch mobs. Ask anyone who lived through the Jim Crow years of the South if community justice is an infallible (or even a particularly effective) tool. Some Native American societies used it to good end, but it seems unlikely that this would work in a large city (say, the size of New York or London). quote:No. quote:Again you draw from the phraseology of Marxists. If you really could get every single person in your society to focus single-mindedly around the same set of goals, then you'd be okay. However, as long as at least some people disagree, as long as at least some people are selfish and will not sacrifice themselves for this goal, as long as at least some people dissent, you need more than just a goal. You need protection. Without that protection, you need trust. EDIT: Come to think of it, I think this speaks for itself: quote: quote: [ Friday, May 07, 2004 13:30: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 13:38
Profile
Homepage
Kel, all humans DO behave in set patterns. Have you ever seen a human fail to do something "human"? Just because it is a very wide field doesn't mean it does not exist. I also never said that everyone had to have the same goal. Just something to work against: hunger, thrist, boredom, foreigners. Whatever it is, humans thrive in adversity. I also never said "faith in human nature". I was referring to humans being human. And when has trust been necessary for ANYTHING? -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 16:28
Profile
Homepage
Your proposed anarchy leaves far too much room for tyranny by majority. If the majority doesn't like those who worship the Great Sandwich, well, they're dead. How do you protect minority rights in a society like that? ?Alorael, who agrees that humans don't need trust. The "goal" that has acted as glue for centuries is the continuation of the goverment. Remove that, and what holds people together? You ascribe far too much superego to humans and far too little ego. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 16:31
Profile
Homepage
I am a democratic socialist. I see anarchy and communism as ideals, but I recognize the fact that they are, at heart, just that. Government is essentially necessary, and a society in which it is not shall be so squarely alien to us that I doubt I'll live on to see it, or even that my memory will live on long enough to be villified by it. -------------------- AnamaFreak (3:59:56 AM): Shounen-ai to the MAX ...there really is nothing that can compare to hot gay sex with a mythological icon. --665 Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Friday, May 7 2004 23:26
Profile
Homepage
Probably right Alec. I would still like to point out to everyone that I am not an anarchist. I really don't even know how I ended up arguing the position. And starting it off into psychology is hardly going to make my headache any better so I'll leave it at that. All hail the Great Sandwich!...?!???? -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 05:16
Profile
Is it necessarily good for anarchy that there is a range of human behaviour? Might I remind you that in the second and fifth decades of the last century humankind as a whole went to great lengths to slaughter each other? -------------------- "I particularly like the part where he claims not to know what self-aggrandisement means, then demands more wing-wongs up his virgin ass" Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 07:58
Profile
Homepage
Maybe not good. But it makes them predictable enough for the purpose of the experiment. -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 08:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:No. What exactly would you count on them to do? What "range" of human behaviors would you expect? Remember that the seriously mentally ill and the exceedingly brilliant have been known to do some VERY bizarre things at times. Beyond certain biological needs, I would go so far as to say that you can't really count on any behavior from human beings. Name something that you can count on all people to do. [ Saturday, May 08, 2004 08:14: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!! (The home of BoA's HLPM v1.1!) Rate my scenarios! Northern Kingdom 0: Prologue High Level Party Maker Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 618
|
written Saturday, May 8 2004 08:20
Profile
Homepage
To be "human". Did you expect anything else? -------------------- I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because I can, but I don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try. In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo. http://s4.invisionfree.com/Ultimate_RP/index.php Try it! Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00 |