A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[Requia ☣]

Then they should find a different word.

The new word would be corrupted to mean something other than intended.

[Doktor Howl]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

I really have to get down to writing the rest of the Unvarnished Truth series, now that the jury thing is over.

But I really don't see a point, come to think of it, because the same arguments are once again rearing their heads.  I expected that, of course, because - like communism - anarchism is a religion, not a political philosophy.

[Doktor Howl]

Then they should find a different word.

The new word would be corrupted to mean something other than intended.

Point.

[LMNO]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

I really have to get down to writing the rest of the Unvarnished Truth series, now that the jury thing is over.

But I really don't see a point, come to think of it, because the same arguments are once again rearing their heads.  I expected that, of course, because - like communism - anarchism is a religion, not a political philosophy.

Hey now, just because a few people here like to tell you what you're thinking before you think it, that doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

[Doktor Howl]

All these variations on anarchy bring to mind the idea of putting a really good stereo system in a car that doesn't run.  It still doesn't run, so you add a fresh coat of paint.  It STILL doesn't run, so you get one of those crown air fresheners for the dash board.

Guess what?  Fucking thing still doesn't run.

[BabylonHoruv]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

From time to time, yes.  But what makes you think those monsters won't exist in an anarchic system?  And what makes you think that those monsters aren't restraining the more common, garden variety monsters?

Of course they'll exist in an Anarchist system.  They just wont be in charge.  As far as restraining garden variety monsters, that's everyone's responsibility.  We're all monsters, to a certain degree, and most of us are capable of seeing when there is someone that needs to be removed from the community.  How that removal happens varies based on which community it is.

[BabylonHoruv]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

So you are arguing for Monarchy?  With just one person in charge?  That has been extensively tried, and I wouldn't say the results turned out so well.

[BabylonHoruv]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

I really have to get down to writing the rest of the Unvarnished Truth series, now that the jury thing is over.

But I really don't see a point, come to think of it, because the same arguments are once again rearing their heads.  I expected that, of course, because - like communism - anarchism is a religion, not a political philosophy.

It's really easy for me to see that happening in the opponents of Anarchism.  I am sure my filters are making it more difficult for me to see it in those arguing the position I agree with.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

No, THAT doesn't mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.  What DOES mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers is the fact that we are primates and thus wired for a pack mentality.

We're also wired to not like things that are different. We're wired to accept our perceptions as reality. We're wired to fling poo, fuck the opposite sex and then go find more of the opposite sex to fuck... but a number of humans don't follow those 'wired' patterns, or at least struggle against them... and occasionally overcome them.

Besides, not all packs need an alpha... or at least not an alpha in the primate sense. Barak Obama, doesn't appear to have the most testosterone, or the greatest physical power... and though his kids are cute, he probably has no greater likelihood of being able to produce offspring than you or me. Claiming 'hardwired' seems lazy to me... humans have changed a hell of a lot of 'hardwired' behaviors.

I find it interesting that the arguments being presented are very similar to the arguments against democracy 200 years ago. 'The plebs can't lead themselves, they need guidance from the educated, trained, rational, reasonable landed gentry/aristocrats/land owners".

Although, after watching voting in the US (like Prop 8 in CA), maybe they had a point.

Rat did, when he said that Anarchy will only work if people aren't mean to each other.

My biggest issue with anarchism as a political system is that it would require people to behave in a self-responsible fashion. IE, accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions. That seems far more detrimental to the philosophy to me.

That had nothing to do with people being mean to each other.

"require people to behave in a self-responsible fashion. IE, accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions"

That means, most people do not seem interested in taking responsibility for their own choices and actions. Bob joins a socialist anarchist group which has a health care system that covers "all necessary medical procedures". Bob decides he wants to have cosmetic surgery. The board that covers health bills says "Err, sorry thats not necessary." and then Bob whines, complains and says "Well, its necessary FOR ME! You're all mean and don't understand my SPECIAL NEEDS!!!!! Fuck you all!!!"

Or maybe there's an agreement in the anarchist commune that everyone will take a turn cleaning the sewage pumps. Bob decides that he doesn't want to do that when his turn comes and makes a load of excuses... even though he agreed to it before.

THAT is why I don't think anarchist systems will work. Violence is not the main issue; irresponsible humans appear as far more of a threat to me.


EOC, I apologize, I'm getting a bit frustrated by replying to the same thing over and over... I shouldn't have gone off on you though.

[Doktor Howl]

Hey now, just because a few people here like to tell you what you're thinking before you think it, that doesn't mean everybody else doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

I'm over that.  It's easy to piss me off, but not the same way over and over again.

It's this:  You can demonstrate the flaws in anarchy until you're blue in the face.  It's proponents will simply look at you, blink, and then begin repeating their mantra.  It's not rationalism, it's a belief system.

Fact:  We didn't have actual anarchy during the period of the Articles of Confederation, and they STILL didn't work, because they simply weren't oriented toward a realistic approach to pack mentality.  Small packs (states) were attempted, and the resulting chaos made potential monarchists out of farmers who had only recently fought monarchy (see the introduction to the Federalist Papers, Penquin publishing edition).  If you have a political entity, primates will only react to it at the highest (in this case national) level.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

no, anarchy is defined that way in the goddamn dictionary.

Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.

The state of a society being without authoritarians or a governing body.

confusion in general; disorder

none of these dictionary definitions has anything to say about "self-rule" or voluntary association.

I know we're on the warpath against pointless padantry these days and I agree with that, however that doesn't mean that you can just start assigning whatever meaning you feel like to a given word.

A couple of things, if what is the dictionary does not agree with common usage the dictionary is wrong, not common usage.  At least in the US.  Webster set those rules in place.  Also, that second definition is exactly what I have been using, The state of society without  a governing body or authoritarians.  Anarchist philosophy includes mutual voluntary association as a natural outgrowth of that precondition, and, also, in many cases, as required to reach the precondition.

Jesus, you guys are really intent on not fucking getting it.

A social/political framework of voluntary association is just rule by everybody, it's not an absence of rulers. Now, given that everybody is not equal in terms of intellect, will, ambition, and charisma, "rule by voluntary association" is naturally going to devolve into a framework where the agenda is driven by the eloquent, charismatic, and ambitious. These are the people who tend to be referred to as "monsters" by those who don't perceive themselves to be benefiting from the aforementioned agenda, but the point is that there will never be any plausible scenario in which the world is rid of these people.

Ergo, any "anarchist" political model is absolute shit and not to be taken seriously with anybody who has 2 brain cells to rub together. That otherwise intelligent people do, in fact, espouse such philosophies is reprehensible, even if it's probably only for the purpose of establishing iconoclastic credibility or sleeping with girls who don't shave their armpits.

[Doktor Howl]

Of course they'll exist in an Anarchist system.  They just wont be in charge.

Of course they will, because they're the bastards that seek out the levers of power in ANY system.

[Doktor Howl]

We're also wired to not like things that are different. We're wired to accept our perceptions as reality. We're wired to fling poo, fuck the opposite sex and then go find more of the opposite sex to fuck... but a number of humans don't follow those 'wired' patterns, or at least struggle against them... and occasionally overcome them.

Great.  Now get 301,000,000 people to do that en masse.  Fact:  All the social progress with respect to Blacks, Gays, and every other "different" group has been done by mandate.

Besides, not all packs need an alpha... or at least not an alpha in the primate sense. Barak Obama, doesn't appear to have the most testosterone, or the greatest physical power...

Who said anything about physical power?  Alphas can also rely on charisma.  But you knew that.

[Doktor Howl]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

So you are arguing for Monarchy?  With just one person in charge?  That has been extensively tried, and I wouldn't say the results turned out so well.

Just where the fuck did he say that?

[Doktor Howl]

Jesus, you guys are really intent on not fucking getting it.

Like I said, it's a religion.

A social/political framework of voluntary association is just rule by everybody,

In short, communism.