A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[LMNO]

The Rule Of Cool is a hard one to beat.

[Cramulus]

the dictionary definition of the word Anarchy is only kissing cousins with the political ideologies under the Anarchy heading


There's tons of types of anarchy

so, again, why not call it something that makes more sense? It'd be like me calling my pants a skirt and then saying that though my "skirt" and the classically defined "skirt" share the same root word, they have radically different meanings. Everyone would just get confused and say shit like "no, dude, you're wearing pants".

right? Like isn't a communist just somebody that lives on a communal farm? why can't they pick a better word?

[Thurnez Isa]

the dictionary definition of the word Anarchy is only kissing cousins with the political ideologies under the Anarchy heading


There's tons of types of anarchy

so, again, why not call it something that makes more sense? It'd be like me calling my pants a skirt and then saying that though my "skirt" and the classically defined "skirt" share the same root word, they have radically different meanings. Everyone would just get confused and say shit like "no, dude, you're wearing pants".

sounds like that magic term that still doesn't make any sense to me.
It's being limited by what language is available
but could be wrong about that

[East Coast Hustle]

the dictionary definition of the word Anarchy is only kissing cousins with the political ideologies under the Anarchy heading


There's tons of types of anarchy

so, again, why not call it something that makes more sense? It'd be like me calling my pants a skirt and then saying that though my "skirt" and the classically defined "skirt" share the same root word, they have radically different meanings. Everyone would just get confused and say shit like "no, dude, you're wearing pants".

right? Like isn't a communist just somebody that lives on a communal farm? why can't they pick a better word?

(redacted to avoid pointless pedantry)

[Telarus]

So essentially, "Anarchism" as a political school of thought is completely disassociated with the root meaning of the word "anarchy"?

Why not just call it something that makes more sense?

Mainly because all of the dead people who came up with most of these definitions used the term to contrast themselves to "rule by Archon". Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules'. It means 'no Archons'. But that terms has fallen out of public education.

n.

   1. A high official; a ruler.
   2. One of the nine principal magistrates of ancient Athens.
   3. An authoritative figure; a leader: archons of cultural modernism.

[Latin archōn, from Greek arkhōn, from present participle of arkhein, to rule.]

Fuck them man, they kicked our clergy out (yet apparently had NOOO problem with Diogenes).

[The Wizard]

And also, there are a couple schools of thought, both political and philosophical, that have names that do not make sense. The one that comes to mind is Objectivism. Given what it advocates, the name makes no sense.

[Reginald Ret]

So you believe the current system is somehow capable of keeping those horrible humans under control.
And that the controlling system does less damage than those horrible humans would do uncontrolled.
And that the subgroup of those horrible humans in control of the controlling system are less horrible than the average horrible human.

no

Then what is the point of the system?

yes

how and why?

no, its equal

Equal? if the controlling subgroup is equally horrible, then allowing them control increases their ability to do damage.

My position is that humans as individuals are horrifying cause their natural state is one of fear, greed, and sex, so they naturally make collectives. Most people are hotwired to naturally obey (Milgram) even to the point of moral corruption. So then it comes a discussion on what amount of power you are going to give to the collective vs the individual. I'm not an idealist or even an optimist. Does one give the power of policing to the collective? What they should police? Do you give the collective the power of fighting fires? science? helping people with mental illnesses? education? What checks to power can we agree on? What is the best way to decentralize destructive power?
To me both systems are flawed, but prefer the one that at least acknowledges our dark tribal urges.

I like the way you think, those are important questions that we must try to find answers too.

I think the obeying nature of man is a weakness that should definetly be accounted for whenever one is trying to change society.

[brainstorm]*
It comes down to incentive.
Your description of the human natural state sounds about right, with the addition that alot of people have rational moments.
So to change human behaviour we need to appeal to either fear, greed or sex and at the same time reinforce this by making the choice we want them to make the most rational.
If we could trust authority figures i would say we should get them to lead by example but as long as the methods for becoming an authority figure are not benificial to society we would be stupid to trust them.
Authority figures come into being through the behaviour of the other people. Here lies the key to changing the nature of authority figures but i haven't figured this out yet. Any anthropologists/sociologists around? They should be capable of helping here.

I believe greed also works for social status.

Example: firefighting.
People fear fire, and fire spreads. make sure people know that fighting fire is the best method to protect themselves and their family.
Make it clear to everyone that saving people makes them like you, it increases your social status.
Telling people to 'call 911 and don't do anything dangerous' dissuades them from helping by appealing to their fear and their tendency to submit to authority.

...
Brainstorms leave me mentally drained, i have no idea if what i said is interesting, or even makes sense and i don't have the clarity of mind to judge it myself right now.



This reminds me of something i wrote a while ago.

How did human submissiveness evolve?

What strange creature man is to shackle himself so willingly.

Assumption: The existence of leader and follower personalities and everything in between.
Leaders are followed because they are better at collecting food/power/mates.
Some of these rewards leak towards other individuals that are near.
these other individuals are either competitors(other leader-types) or followers.
Leaders fight the competition and use the followers to increase their rewards.
The only way to be better at collecting rewards is by taking more risks.
Followers collect a small fraction of the rewards without taking more risks.
Being a follower increases your chances of survival/reproduction more than being a leader when compensating for the increased risks.
So eventually man did away with leaders all together and created abstractions to take the place of leaders.
This was the birth of the first meta-human entity.

In short: Leaders take risks and followers reap rewards. Therefore natural selection pushes humans towards follower-type behaviour.

[Placid Dingo]

<offtopicsomewhat>

And also, there are a couple schools of thought, both political and philosophical, that have names that do not make sense. The one that comes to mind is Objectivism. Given what it advocates, the name makes no sense.

I remember reading that what she really wanted to call it was Existentialism, but that one had already been taken.

</offtopicsomewhat>

[P3nT4gR4m]

You know the old rule - "nature abhors a vacuum"? Well anarchy is (by definition as well as attempted implementation) a vacuum. More specifically it is a power vacuum. The only thing that ever happens as a direct result of a power vacuum is people being lined up for arm removal by machete. Oh, yeah and the biggest, baddest, meanest motherfucker stepping in to fill it. Usually a tribal warlord (if there's no oil in the ground) or the USA/UN "Peace Keeping Force" (if there is)

[Triple Zero]

Sounds to me like ECH wants to define Anarchy to mean "Retarded". If that's what you want to describe, why not just call it retarded, instead of using a word that has so much other connotations?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Because not all retards are anarchists.

I strongly suspect the converse may be true, tho. Okay maybe not exactly retarded but definitely deluded.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You know the old rule - "nature abhors a vacuum"? Well anarchy is (by definition as well as attempted implementation) a vacuum. More specifically it is a power vacuum. The only thing that ever happens as a direct result of a power vacuum is people being lined up for arm removal by machete. Oh, yeah and the biggest, baddest, meanest motherfucker stepping in to fill it. Usually a tribal warlord (if there's no oil in the ground) or the USA/UN "Peace Keeping Force" (if there is)

But, anarchy is defined that way only on Internet forums and in the minds of edgy freshmen college kids. Why do people keep claiming anarchy = power vacuum?

Some forms of anarchy, COULD, if implemented terribly poorly, create a power vacuum. Other forms would put the necessary social structures in place to avoid a power vacuum.... the major difference is that those social structures would be voluntary in nature, respecting the individual... rather than compulsory in nature, as it is today.

[LMNO]

But isn't that resorting to the "it would work, but only if everyone were nice to each other" fallacy?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But isn't that resorting to the "it would work, but only if everyone were nice to each other" fallacy?

... No more so than  democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.

At its most simple, all we are talking about is that individuals would have the freedom to select the society that they want to be a part of based on the beliefs and social standards of the group. Rather than having a single National State that requires X from all citizens, there would be multiple collectives, associations, syndicates etc which the individual would select from. That group might have very permissive social standards, or very restrictive ones, as long as the individual chooses to place themselves in that social group under their social standards/traditions/expectations.

Being nice to each other is unnecessary for most social systems to work (though its sure helpful to make them a positive experience).


EDIT: However, this is not the system I advocate... as its just as prone to failure as all other political systems. From a Discordian perspective 'Rational Anarchy' makes the most sense to me. [Just to keep the discussion on topic]

[LMNO]

To be clear, they volunteer to operate under a certain set of rules, and from then on are bound to those rules, or are those rules still voluntary?