Principia Discordia

"Anarchism is Order"
- popular Anarchist saying, often attributed to Mikhail Bakunin

"We simply do not consider it desirable that a realm of justice and harmony should be established on earth"
- Nietzsche, "The Gay Science"

"A state of extreme confusion and disorder"
- The Princeton Dictionary definition of "Chaos"

I've been meaning to write this for a long time.  On and off for about 4 years, to be perfectly honest.  Sometimes I decided it was unnecessary, at other times I didn't necessarily feel like writing it very much, but now I have both the opportunity and motivation, so I've finally done it.

==========================

One of the things which has often caused a good degree of mirth, if some confusion in me, is why so many Discordians consider themselves Anarchists.  As the first definition above suggests, Anarchism is based on the idea of spontaneous and natural, yet lasting order.  That, if certain impediments to this vision of social organisation were removed, that we could all live in relative peace and harmony with each other.

This has always sounded somewhat suspicious to me, both as a general political sceptic and a Discordian.  It doesn't sound like the kind of comment one would expect to come from people who insist that disagreement, discord, chaos and strife are just as valid and important as order, harmony and cooperation.

The basis of anarchist political and economic thought can be found in the 18th century, and especially in the doctrine of laissez-faire conceived of by Adam Smith, and developed by others.  Essentially and very shortened, the argument is that without state control, the individual will act in ways which not only benefit themselves, but community interests as a whole.  This is the idea of the harmony of interests, and it is from this much, though not all, anarchist theory stems.  In fact, according to Smith, someone doesn't even need to try and act in the public interest, because his private interest will naturally lead him that way, "as if guided by an invisible hand".

Now as a factual argument, this had some validity when applied to the 18th century economic structure.  However, as society changed with the industrial revolution, so did the social structure and economic systems of production.  As such, while the doctrine of the harmony of interests continued, despite a dubious relevance, its new role was to act as a legitimizing tool for dominant group interests, whereby they could identify their interests with those of society as a whole.

An unspoken pillar of the success of laissez-faire was, at the time, that of expanding and new markets.  Because of new markets, producers did not compete too strongly in currently existing ones with entrenched companies or individuals, allowing a semblance of harmony to exist.  It's the same sort of harmony that exists when one has very few road users.  As the traffic increases, so does the complexity of the system and the possibility of conflict, or at the very least, non-zero sum relationships between road users.  The same is true of markets.

However, as we all know, infinitely expanding markets are simply untenable, if not logically impossible.  The question of conflict can only be put off for so long.

Somewhat ironically, this adoption of harmony of interest undermines certain Anarchist arguments, since it is possible that the existence state is not opposed to the citizenry, at least theoretically.  Running with that, many European liberals and free-marketers that had no problems with the state put forward the opinion that the good of each individual state did not necessarily impact negatively on other states, and that pursuit of self-gratification would benefit the international community as a whole.  So would free trade, naturally.

Building on this, 19th century liberals, such as Mazzini, the Italian reformer, argued that nationalism also did not impact negatively on any other nation, and that every nation was suited to a certain part of the division of international labour.  At the time, with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Prussian militarists and the Russian Empire keeping an effective lock-down on the various ethnic groups of Eastern Europe, that certainly seemed true, however anyone who knows the history of conflict in the region knows how short-sighted that viewpoint really is, and how many groups have competing claims on the same patches of land, claims that are now entirely exclusionary thanks to xenophobic nationalism.

As nationalistic claims became more insistent and pronounced certain economists in second-tier economies, like the United States and Germany, began to point out how free trade disproportionately benefitted the major trading power of the time, the United Kingdom.  Marxist theories, which denied the harmony of interest and placed class-conflict at the centre of its analysis, were also becoming more popular on the Continent.  Laissez-faire came under unprecedented attack, and it was only the appropriation of the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin which helped save them.

Naturally, Darwin himself cannot be blamed for the poor importation of his scientific theories into a pseudoscientific area of study.  As smaller companies were put out of business by larger competitors and as new markets shrunk, it was claimed by those who benefitted from these actions that this too was evolution – and as such benefitted the community at large.  But of course, there is not a direct match between this vulgar Social Darwinism and the doctrine of the harmony of interests, and so it was the latter who underwent a subtle change.  Now the good of the community was redefined as to mean that the community was made up of those who were strong enough to succeed, and those who failed were weaklings, who were holding back society at large.  They were the price which had to be paid for progress.

Of course, this Social Darwinism quickly found currency in justifying territorial expansion and conquest by the major world powers, by claiming war as a form of "natural selection" which weeded out the weak nations and races of people.  As with weak individuals, so were the weak nations sacrificed for the greater good and harmony of the world at large.  And although this laissez-faire liberalism became less popular in the domestic sphere as WWI drew closer, it still remained a very real factor of international politics up until the war.  

All of this is a nice history lesson, but you are probably wondering exactly how this impacts on Anarchist arguments, since they deliberately disavow the state, a factor they would most certainly claim separates them from the unfortunate side effects and decay of classical liberalism.   The purpose of this was to show that one of the main foundations of Anarchist thought – that we can all get along, productively and without conflict – when actually tried in reality only works when those too weak to fight back or protest effectively are ignored and sacrificed for a nebulous greater good.  The claim that conflict can be overcome generally and that everyone can benefit from a single system generally is a lie, and that lie can only ever be enforced through military might.

Anarchism, for all its vaunted "individualism" and talk of freedom, at its core cannot tolerate real difference.  It cannot accept actors who do not act in a "rational" manner and do not have aims which coincide with everyone else's aims.   And when people are confronted with those who won't conform, especially to an ideological system like Anarchism, violence is almost always the response of choice.  Equally, those who suffer because of the system are cruelly discarded with contemptuous statements about their lack of "fitness" and utility.

Indeed some of these trends seem to have been picked up on by the "National-Anarchists", Anarchists coming from an extreme right wing point of view, who denounce the state and everything it does as against the "Natural Order" – a list that also includes multiculturalism, feminism and homosexuality.  

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through.  

Now, to clarify, this isn't a "pro-state" argument, though it will almost certainly be construed and portrayed as such by some people.  The state/anti-statist dualism is about as clever, and useful, as calling all Americans on the left "Democrats" and on the right "Republicans".  States have good and bad things about them.  So does anti-statism.  Treating it as some sort of Manichean struggle between good and evil is another reason why I suspect latent fanaticism and dogmatism in much of the Anarchist movement, because it is incapable of seeing the world in any other way than black and white, where you are either for whichever minor political sect they are a member of, or The Enemy.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, are among the reasons I consider Anarchism...well not exactly incompatible with Discordianism, since conceivably any political position could be taken by a Discordian (though their sincerity and motives for doing so would be quite different to many of their compatriots), but why I find it an unusual choice.  This emphasis on harmony and order and naturalism...it has some very sinister undertones when one thinks about them, ones which are not necessarily in agreement with adherents of chaos and disorder.

Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

Shit yeah! Personally, I've always been one to just reply to "Anarchism" (of whatever form) with 'Yeah, good luck making that work chump'. Because let's face it, it just won't.

What I get from this though is a sense of the world view of Anarchism - what mindset would be necessary to make such a system work, and the mindset that 'Anarchists' have now as they try to establish their political and philosophical ideal in the real world. And the consequences of that world view...

As you point out Cain, there are pros and cons to the anti-statist view, and with all (or at least most - I would hesitate to expound too long on the pros of National Socialism in Germany between '33 and '45) other political philosophies. In your view, would a synthesis of the major political and social ideals be a workable or desirable way forward? (a kind of Right Tool For The Right Job philosophy)

Finally:

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM
As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

Is fucking awesome, I find it an incredibly powerful statement which I may well yoink to make myself look smarter than I really am.

I think Darwin would agree with your argument, were he alive today. Darwin, as it was, was not a "social darwinist". Heh.

Overall, this was a good read, and offers the best definitions of and arguments against rational anarchism.

Very good read, Cain. I need history lessons like these :)

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 09:11:44 AM
Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

I got more out of it that 'even if it did work, conformism would take over'.

Though, what exactly does Cain's argument have to do with evolutionary psychology?

Thanks for this, Cain.  It very neatly points out the funamental flaw(s) that most people tend to avoid.

Great essay. That should be stored away somewhere incase it gets eaten up by a forum prune.

But would you consider it possible that such Anarchist sentiments are just another flavour of idealism that, like you said, has to be enforced with military might?
I mean that to say I am an "Attitudinal Anarchist", in that I have my own understanding of State and what it's good for, but I really couldn't give a hoot what anyone else does, because I've already established my "Anarchist State", which extends about 2 inches from my skin. I feel about other peoples life decisions as a wasp feels about a Human; co-existence until you fuck with my shit.

Am I rambling, or does this make sense?

No, you're a self-deluded idiot who seems to enjoy spending much of his time trying to convince himself of his own intellectual prowess. this is severely undercut by your acceptance of astrology as "science" and your frothing anti-homosexual screeds. Now fuck off and stop spamming up Cain's excellent thread. Your kind, as I believe you put it, isn't welcome here.

Oh. I can see there's no space here for adult conversation here.

Assumptions, assumptions.

There is space here for many things. None of them involve you. You insisted on making yourself unwelcome. Don't be surprised at how well you succeeded.

great post, Cain. You should repost this at 23ae so there's an external copy of it.  :)


What really rings out to me is that anarchism, as a system of preventing hierarchal violence, creates lateral* violence


I just finished watching Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. In it he talks about it codetermination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination) worker cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), in which employees have a degree of democratic control over the company.

To me, this seems to be what anarchism was aiming for. Anarchism seeks to abolish THE MAN who can hire, fire, make, or break you with the swish of a pen. It's hard to live like a dignified human being when the state outlaws everything you want to do. The evil that anarchism wants to abolish is the monarch. But if we eliminate the authority of the law, we're left with the messiness of ungoverned monkeys. Violence becomes a pretty useful tool to generate consensus.

So maybe the answer isn't to abolish bosses, but to decrease the amount of authority they have. In a true democracy, if your boss is a dick, you can vote him out. The guy telling you what to do is taking home the same paycheck you are, so you don't get a chance to develop a lot of institutional jealousy.



As an aside, I'd really love it if this thread doesn't get jacked by responses to #6



*(is this the right word? what's the opposite of hierarchial?)

Quote from: Number_6 on April 12, 2010, 06:01:56 PM
Great essay. That should be stored away somewhere incase it gets eaten up by a forum prune.

Doesn't happen in or kill me.

Quote from: Number_6 on April 12, 2010, 06:01:56 PM
But would you consider it possible that such Anarchist sentiments are just another flavour of idealism that, like you said, has to be enforced with military might?

Yes if you want to make it an actuality as opposed to an ideal.

Quote from: Number_6 on April 12, 2010, 06:01:56 PM
I mean that to say I am an "Attitudinal Anarchist", in that I have my own understanding of State and what it's good for, but I really couldn't give a hoot what anyone else does, because I've already established my "Anarchist State", which extends about 2 inches from my skin. I feel about other peoples life decisions as a wasp feels about a Human; co-existence until you fuck with my shit.

You think you are an attitudinal anarchist, but in practice you are a narcissist who practices mental masturbation.

Cain, excellent thread.  I enjoyed it immensely, though I'm not sure I agree with all of it.  Will post more thoughts later, when I'm not having to deal with jackasses at the office.

You want a thread split, by the way?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 12, 2010, 03:32:24 PM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 09:11:44 AM
Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

I got more out of it that 'even if it did work, conformism would take over'.

Though, what exactly does Cain's argument have to do with evolutionary psychology?

It doesn't really, I've just been thinking about how evolutionary psychology is bullshit lately.

Killer post, Cain.

I can't wait for Ratatosk and other anarchists to try and address this.

Yes, I look forward to that discussion too. Wonderful OP Cain.

As with all of Cain's post this is interesting, and reasonably insightful, however I think it is slightly misaimed.  Most modern Anarchists, at least the Libertarian Socialist sort as opposed to the Libertarian Capitalist sort, incorporate Marx.  Placing Anarchists in the same camp as Smithians who disregard Marx is innaccurate.

The part of this that hits closest to home for me, as an Anarchist, is the part about Anarchism naturally being an orderly, harmonious society.  This is a basic assumption of Anarchist thought on both sides, that with the oppression of the state removed people will naturally choose to form harmonious collectives.  Obviously our basic monkey nature says that this is not really all that likely.  It's something I have been struggling with since i first started to explore Anarchist thought, and it is certainly not something that has been ignored, it is just a tricky point to get around because the various approaches tend to have problems of their own.  The one I am personally most fond of is, perhaps, closer to panarchism, with each community being ruled in whatever way the members of that community choose, the only aspect that must be shared by all being the freedom to leave.  I also tend to focus on a smaller scale, with the growth of my own community and the resilience and independence of that community as my goal, not some sort of national or international revolution.  To me there is always going to be conflict, I was raised on a commune which operated on a consensus model and observed firsthand that even in a relatively small group of people who all care about one another there is going to be conflict, and that although this is frustrating, and makes things get done more slowly, it can also lead to positive results.  Anarchism may include an assumption of harmony, but that doesn't mean that Anarchist models that have been brought into reality have required harmony to operate.

Anarchism to me means stealing your neighbors stuff and raping his daughter

It would be just like some African countries when a government collapses. You get... well... anarchy. It's humans at their most primitive state.
That's the problem with anarchy it relies on humans being nice to each, ignoring what people actually do to each other.

I tend to think of myself as an anarchist. I believe that it is the ideal, but like most ideals we are currently incapable of handling it as a species. It's like any Utopian society, in that it cannot work. I kind of hope that after some more evolution mankind will get it's head out of it's ass, but until then I go with what I think makes things better. 

My personal take on how an anarchist society would work would be essentially disorder with bits of spontaneous order popping up where needed. People would generally leave each other alone and pursue there own goals, banding together with like minded individuals to achieve said goals. After finishing their task, these groups would then dissolve back into the rest of society. Such goals could be as simple as setting up a meal or as complex as designing homes. But in all honesty, given it's impossibility, I haven't really put much thought into what exact form an anarchist society would take.

As for Cain's OP, it was very well written and makes several very good points. I agree that eliminating conflict from society is pointless, and in my opinion, harmful. Conflict is what keeps societies fresh, keeps them from stagnating. Organizational differences, arguments, and even wars serve a purpose. They force change. I do disagree with the idea that Anarchists cannot except real difference. I'm okay with what most people believe as long as they don't try and force it on other people, which as Cain pointed out. Anarchists do tend to be inflexible to the point of fanaticism, which is rather stupid but also not unexpected.

Anyway, this post has gone on longer than I meant it too. Great work Cain, and I hope my response was decent.

@ Cain  I intend to write a longer reply to your post but that will have to wait untill i am A: not nursing a glass of ice cold vodka and B: not exhausted.

Quote from: LMNO on April 12, 2010, 04:11:34 PM
Thanks for this, Cain.  It very neatly points out the funamental flaw(s) that most people tend to avoid.

I learned a spiffy new word today.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 12, 2010, 07:27:28 PM
What really rings out to me is that anarchism, as a system of preventing hierarchal violence, creates lateral violence

Quite true.
As an anarchist I ofcourse believe that the lateral violence will be less than the hierarchal violence.
Is this enough to make my worldview disprovable?

Quote from: Cramulus on April 12, 2010, 07:27:28 PM
I just finished watching Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. In it he talks about it codetermination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination) worker cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative), in which employees have a degree of democratic control over the company.

To me, this seems to be what anarchism was aiming for. Anarchism seeks to abolish THE MAN who can hire, fire, make, or break you with the swish of a pen. It's hard to live like a dignified human being when the state outlaws everything you want to do. The evil that anarchism wants to abolish is the monarch. But if we eliminate the authority of the law, we're left with the messiness of ungoverned monkeys. Violence becomes a pretty useful tool to generate consensus.

So maybe the answer isn't to abolish bosses, but to decrease the amount of authority they have. In a true democracy, if your boss is a dick, you can vote him out. The guy telling you what to do is taking home the same paycheck you are, so you don't get a chance to develop a lot of institutional jealousy.

Hmm i'm not sure you could make all the people accept equal paychecks without resorting to force, so this option is hard to accept for me.
A change in thinking/culture should work better.
(wishful thinking alert) If only more people would take control over their life and just walk away from shitty bosses/jobs/etc. That way having a sucky boss ruins the company.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2010, 11:43:36 PM
Anarchism to me means stealing your neighbors stuff and raping his daughter

It would be just like some African countries when a government collapses. You get... well... anarchy. It's humans at their most primitive state.
That's the problem with anarchy it relies on humans being nice to each, ignoring what people actually do to each other.

This adds nothing to the thread, it's just repeating the same old 'The TV told me anarchists are violent' argument.
Guess what: noone thinks 'i am evil' and only socio/psycho-paths think stealing your neighbour's daughter and raping his stuff isn't evil.
Either your idea of how most people would act is damaged by bad experiences or based on your own personality.
If it is based on bad experiences then it is most likely caused by systematic powerabuse by those around you and i feel very sorry for you.
If it is based on your own personality: you scare me. When told of a hypothetical situation where your chance of getting caught drops by about 20% and the punishment changes from jailtime to most likely death and possibly torture+death you imagine you would immediatly do something so horrendous that not even your own mother would want to help you.

Also, even Number_6 added more. Shame on you.



I'm sorry if i am not being nice enough or whatever, but being called a rapist because i believe that power-disparity leads to power-abuse makes me angry.

Quote from: Regret on April 13, 2010, 12:38:50 AM

Quite true.
As an anarchist I ofcourse believe that the lateral violence will be less than the hierarchal violence.
Is this enough to make my worldview disprovable?

Yes.  Liberia, during the Charles Taylor days.

I wasn't calling your a rapist... but i was telling you what I think the results would be. I have no doubt you could live in such a society, but I have little or no faith in most of humanity. Maybe cause i have a very low opinion of humanity (and that might be a bit of a understatement)

Murder, blood hatred, tribalism, all parts of being a primate. There is no sense in denying that in my opinion.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 12, 2010, 11:43:36 PM
Anarchism to me means stealing your neighbors stuff and raping his daughter

It would be just like some African countries when a government collapses. You get... well... anarchy. It's humans at their most primitive state.
That's the problem with anarchy it relies on humans being nice to each, ignoring what people actually do to each other.

As regret already said this is the knee jerk uneducated response to Anarchy.  My response to it is usually as follows.

If people are, at heart that horribly rotten, then giving any one of those horribly rotten people more power than the rest is a really awful idea.  That person will then use that power to steal from all his neighbors and rape all their daughters.  So, if people are at heart vile rotten monsters Anarchism is the only feasible system because it limits the ability of each of those monsters to hurt one another.

Currently those in power do abuse it, although not nearly enough to validate this particular view of human nature.

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 07:40:54 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 12, 2010, 03:32:24 PM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 09:11:44 AM
Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

I got more out of it that 'even if it did work, conformism would take over'.

Though, what exactly does Cain's argument have to do with evolutionary psychology?

It doesn't really, I've just been thinking about how evolutionary psychology is bullshit lately.

Do tell, cause it sounded like you were either implying ev psych makes moral judgments or that it supports social darwinism.

but people don't need power to hurt people

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 13, 2010, 04:08:07 AM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 07:40:54 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 12, 2010, 03:32:24 PM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 09:11:44 AM
Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

I got more out of it that 'even if it did work, conformism would take over'.

Though, what exactly does Cain's argument have to do with evolutionary psychology?

It doesn't really, I've just been thinking about how evolutionary psychology is bullshit lately.

Do tell, cause it sounded like you were either implying ev psych makes moral judgments or that it supports social darwinism.

Just read up on the any number of guys who say "lol men must spread their seed becuz the cavemen did".  I'm at work so I can't give any examples right now.

QuoteYOU WILL FIND that the STATE is the kind of ORGANIZATION which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly too. - John Kenneth Galbraith as quoted in the Principia Discordia pg. 17

Many social philosophies aim for order in some sense. Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Monarchies, Oligarchies, Democracies and Totalitarian Dictatorships all aim for some sort of stability. Some assume that shared responsibility will bring about some kind of order, others assume that the smartest leaders would reduce chaos. Anarchism, at its core assumes that non-compulsory systems will bring about the most stable system. This is its one true difference. Anything beyond that depends greatly on which system of anarchism we're talking about. The various systems under the generic label "Social Anarchism" include diverse concepts such as regulated markets, communal systems and social systems where there is a shared burden of responsibility (for example, where all members might cover medical expenses for the group). Individualist Anarchism, another label for a group of different systems, focus on the individual over any social system (social norms, tribal traditions, governments etc). These are less wildly varied than the social anarchist systems, but there are still several differences (often found in Punk rock and Libertarians).

My point here is that an argument against Anarchism because it presumes that its perfect implementation will result in peace on earth, and good will toward men... is applicable to any and all systems of social organization. They all presume something about humans which will hold true some of the time, or most of the time, but not all of the time. In fact "anarchism" as a generic label includes systems which use the same mechanisms for trying (and failing) to achieve some kind of perfect social order.

No system is 100%. That goes for Anarchists, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists and as-of-yet 'undiscovered' tribes in the Amazon. We can say its human nature, the way of the Monkey or  the wobble of the Sacred Chao. Either way, aiming for a perfect system, or a naturally ordered system, or a compulsory ordered system plays like a short game that  ends with dead referees.

Flaws, so exquisitely laid out by Cain in the OP, seem to apply across the board to me. This quote popped out at me more than the rest:

QuoteThe purpose of this was to show that one of the main foundations of Anarchist thought – that we can all get along, productively and without conflict – when actually tried in reality only works when those too weak to fight back or protest effectively are ignored and sacrificed for a nebulous greater good.  The claim that conflict can be overcome generally and that everyone can benefit from a single system generally is a lie, and that lie can only ever be enforced through military might.

Could we not say the same of Classical Liberalism, as he demonstrated? The current state of the US political system doesn't seem to help us all get along productively and without conflict. Currently, it seems to help us  poke at each other with sticks, pee on "platforms" and "talking points" while our leaders do everything they can to turn the other half of the leadership into "the enemy" with death panels and torture chambers. From the first Cabinet of the First President, the United States has been divided and that division is as strong now as it ever was. Communism thus far doesn't seem to have come up with peaceful co-existence without conflict. In fact, the most similar thing, it seems, between all of these systems is 'enforcement through military might'.

As a Discordian, this all seems rather trivial. Chaos leads to Discord which drags us into Confusion, after which we flounder in Bureaucracy until the sweet release of Aftermath collapses into Chaos and then the next year shows up. Big States doing Big things or Small States doing Small things...

Thus I reject all of the aforementioned political views. I am not a Individualist Anarchist, because they don't seem to consider the base nature of some human beings. Personally, I think most humans would probably try to get along, but it would only take a few Hatfield's and McCoys to blow the dream all to hell.

I am not a Socialist for the same reasons that my moral system doesn't come from religion. Sacrifice/assistance/help/sharing under duress is not sacrifice/assistance/help/sharing at all, its simply forced behavior and that doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. Besides, each of these systems put some small group of people in power. As those people are likely humans, some bad ones will eventually show up and ruin the party.

Social Anarchism, in its varied forms suffers the same flaws, because they use the same mechanisms (communist, socialism, capitalism, etc)

I have found a viewpoint, however, which seems compatible with my interpretation of Discordianism.

It appears obvious to me, that most humans (for better or worse) want some kind of government. All government, at best, rests on some form of mild compulsion and at worst, jackboot thugs and Cable News Commentators. Taken together, this means that  it is likely most Discordians will live in a place where there is a government. If they're fortunate, it will be one of those 'mild compulsion' sorts of government, if they're not so fortunate... well.. ick.

In any society where we assume a government, we assume some rise in order. Chaos comes from the inability to predict completely what dynamic systems will do. So if a Discordian is being ordered, via some form of compulsory system to act in a why that they do not want or that "everybody hates", they can apply Eris' advice to Mal-2 and "STOP".

In short, we all live in anarchy today. Every action we make is the result of our individual, conscious choice. Recognizing this choice allows us to rationally consider the effect of the action, the moral choice in doing or not doing the act and the consequences of the act. The system may be laissez-faire capitalism, but Bernie Maddof is still personally responsible for his actions. The individual actors within Magnetar Trade are still responsible for the high risk investments they put together and then hedged against. Abolitionists that assisted with the Underground Railroad and hid runaway slaves, for example, were acting as Rational Anarchists. Rationally had to disobey the State because they could not justify acting as the State demanded, even in a representative Republic.

In short, Rational Anarchism espouses only this: "Think For Yourself, Schmuck". No matter which current facade of Order is draped around you, you must think for yourself, because your actions will be yours to bear.

This is a different sort of Political view than Cain started this thread with. Cain's post discusses the sort of ordered systems which are bound to fail, bound to be imperfect, bound to be flawed and abused. This Political View, which I find compatible with Discordianism focuses on the individual attempting to act rationally in what will invariably become an irrational system. Not rebellion for the sake of rebellion, or freedom by bomb and molotov cocktail, but a political view which assets that we are already anarchists, acting as individuals and responsible as individuals.

Also, anyone that bases their political system on Discordianism should probably be ignored.  :lulz:

Great thread. I've always thought that people's ideas of Anarchy (Anarchism sounds too "ismy" IMO) differs hugely, From the early 20th C of "bomb carrying Anarchists" to the more personal, less political view of a State free state of society. I prefer to take the word at it's most basic meaning, which is "rule of one", or self rule. Taking responsibility for our own behaviour, and it's consequences. I realise that violence, or the fear/threat of violence, can be the great leveller here, but there would be far less of it around, (esp in a potentially armed populace) if people had to think their own actions through. A State, with it's enforced Judicial system, assumes responsibility for the parameters of what is acceptable, in any society. If someone commits an offence against your person, the State assumes any level of redress, and administers punishment as it sees fit, often deleteriously. If people were to realise that any level of threat, or offence given, would be met with a response from the victim, that wasn't mitigated by a "Justice system", then we might be a little more respectful, and less offensive to each other. Not that anyone has the right to walk this life and not be offended, far from it, but it's not about "Love and peace, and harmony". Our personal behaviour can be quite a handful to take responsibility for, so it's not about "tearing down the oppresion of the State", just taking a bit more responsibilty for what we do. Instead of just thinking, "fuck it, it's not my problem", thinking "fuck it, that's pretty soon going to be my problem", and acting appropriately.
"Taking the Law into your own hands" is one of the most heinous crimes in any Judicial system, but whose hands should it be in then? Someone elses? What makes them more fit than you, to take responsibility for your behaviour?  Unnaceptable is unnaceptable, and if people had to live with the direct consequences of their unnacceptable behaviour, they would soon learn to compromise. Or behave. Maybe.

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 13, 2010, 05:32:21 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 13, 2010, 04:08:07 AM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 07:40:54 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 12, 2010, 03:32:24 PM

Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 12, 2010, 09:11:44 AM
Excellent as usual Cain, thanks for posting this.  It's the longhand version of "it just won't work" which is the most civil response to serious anarchists I've seen on this board.  Heh.

Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2010, 08:23:43 AM

As I cannot stress enough, when one "naturalizes" certain attitudes, trends or ideas, and combines the idea of "natural" with "good", the results are not very pretty.  It causes the sort of mentality one frequently finds among fanatics and fundamentalists – because it is precisely the same mentality, only religious bigots replace "natural order" with "natural law" ie; God's Law.  Naturalizing anti-statism and spontaneous order has some very serious implications, ones which I don't think many Anarchists have clearly thought through. 

This same argument can be made to counter bullshit evolutionary psychology theories.

I got more out of it that 'even if it did work, conformism would take over'.

Though, what exactly does Cain's argument have to do with evolutionary psychology?

It doesn't really, I've just been thinking about how evolutionary psychology is bullshit lately.

Do tell, cause it sounded like you were either implying ev psych makes moral judgments or that it supports social darwinism.

Just read up on the any number of guys who say "lol men must spread their seed becuz the cavemen did".  I'm at work so I can't give any examples right now.

So you're criticizing a field of academic study based on what a bunch of people who haven't read anything about it in oh, ever, think it means?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 13, 2010, 01:03:39 AM
I wasn't calling your a rapist... but i was telling you what I think the results would be. I have no doubt you could live in such a society, but I have little or no faith in most of humanity. Maybe cause i have a very low opinion of humanity (and that might be a bit of a understatement)

Murder, blood hatred, tribalism, all parts of being a primate. There is no sense in denying that in my opinion.

Hmmpfh.
Fair enough.

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.
I'm a bit surprised by your optimism.
Maybe you have a very low opinion of humanity and a very low opinion of humankind's ability to subvert control systems.
I agree that primates can be horrible bastards, but sadly they are also very contrary, subversive and powerhungry.


ETA: dammit, i really should soberly reread Cain's post and reply to it. but again i am pickled.
Apologies for my disrespectful attitude Cain, my free time often seems to coincide with my desire to lose myself.

Rat,
is Rational Anarchy really a 'political view' if it doesn't prescribe specific policy?

Quote from: Regret on April 13, 2010, 10:36:08 PM

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
yes
no, its equal
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.

Just read the OP, will scan comments next.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, the Magnificent Motherfucker Espikopos Cain explains how Taoism was subverted to Confucianism (and how that keeps happening, again and again and again in cultural narratives).

I will be greatly honored to buy you a drink if we ever have a face-to-face.

Quote from: BadBeast on April 13, 2010, 08:57:21 AM

"Taking the Law into your own hands" is one of the most heinous crimes in any Judicial system, but whose hands should it be in then? Someone elses? What makes them more fit than you, to take responsibility for your behaviour?  Unnaceptable is unnaceptable, and if people had to live with the direct consequences of their unnacceptable behaviour, they would soon learn to compromise. Or behave. Maybe.

I think this is the exact position that Cain is arguing against. I think.

This seems to be to be quite a good example of expecting a "natural order" to emerge from lack of a state-like social mechanism. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's probabilistic and probably non-predictable based on each unique circumstance (although I put a average chance quite, quite low in most modern population scenarios).

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 07:56:26 AM

In short, we all live in anarchy today.

This is my standard response to anyone who tries to convince me that anarchy is a good idea. "anarchy" in the - no rules and government - sense. What happens when we have perfect anarchy? No rules and government? The first thing, the very first thing that happens is the biggest, strongest, meanest motherfuckers impose rules and government. That's anarchy at it's finest - it's the only system currently possible. :lulz:

Quote from: Iptuous on April 13, 2010, 10:51:08 PM
Rat,
is Rational Anarchy really a 'political view' if it doesn't prescribe specific policy?

It does have a specific policy, 'pick the action that you can live with, because it is your choice... your responsibility'. However, I think its possibly a meta-political view. A perception of any political system which I think makes that system more compatible with some of the ideas around Discordian philosophy.

It does make a few political positions, though. Individuals are personally responsible for their actions... no matter what fictional entity might be pretending to run the State. Ergo, its not the US government that is condoning assassinations... but rather it is every individual involved in that decision, from the President to the spag that fires the gun.There is no shared responsibility via some anonymous entity.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 14, 2010, 04:48:05 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 07:56:26 AM

In short, we all live in anarchy today.

This is my standard response to anyone who tries to convince me that anarchy is a good idea. "anarchy" in the - no rules and government - sense. What happens when we have perfect anarchy? No rules and government? The first thing, the very first thing that happens is the biggest, strongest, meanest motherfuckers impose rules and government. That's anarchy at it's finest - it's the only system currently possible. :lulz:

Well for individualist anarchism, you're probably right. For socialist anarchism systems, thats no more true than it is now. Anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules or no government, just that there is no coercion. For example, if all 50 states could choose their social system completely independantly and all citizens were free to choose which state they wanted to associate with, then that could easily be a form of socialist anarchy. If a group called Ohio says "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 5% of their income to cover medical needs for everyone in the collective" and another group called Indiana said "Anyone that would like to join our group is responsible for their own health care" and a group called Michigan said "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 8% of their income to cover medical needs and preventative medical education for everyone in the collective".... and everyone could choose of their own Free Will which group they would associate with (if any), then we have a basic system of Anarchy.

Most anarchist systems have some kind of rules. IF someone tells you that anarchy means 'no rules', then they are using a modern colloquialism, not the term used to discuss the political systems that fall under that umbrella.

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?

Because "Idealistic Individualism" doesn't sound as cool.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
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?

Anarchy can be defined as self-rule.

Self-Rule, in Individualist Anarchism means that the individual is above all law (ala gimme your sammich!)
Self-Rule in Socialist Anarchism means that the individual is free to determine for themselves what sort of law they will live under. (ala We all help each other keep our sammiches, if you want to join us.)
Self-Rule for Rational Anarchism means that the individual recognizes that they are fully self-responsible individuals, regardless of whatever pretend entity calls itself government. (I don't care if you're the government and you demand it, I am not about to go steal that persons sammich.)

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

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

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



not all anarchists want to live in a world with no laws or cops. There's tons of types of anarchy, some of them seem barely related to anarcho-communism (which is what we tend to associate the word with)

I've always understood anarchy to mean a lack of hierarchy or central leadership. I've met anarchists that have no problem with whatever the government is doing as long as it doesn't bother them personally.

the favorite anarchist I've ever met is the one who insisted she was a communist, not a capitalist. I asked her how much money she tends to carry around in her wallet. Oh, she said, I only use credit cards. HAH!

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

It was generally called 'libertarianism' in the early/mid 1800's and has been called anarchism since 'Libertarian' came to reference, specifically 'Free Market economics'. Anarchism, in the Oxford dictionary I have here and other dictionaries I've used in the past define it as "political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs".

If you want to discuss the etymology of the word, thats cool... but I don't think its all that germane to the discussion.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
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".

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 14, 2010, 07:13:13 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

It was generally called 'libertarianism' in the early/mid 1800's and has been called anarchism since 'Libertarian' came to reference, specifically 'Free Market economics'. Anarchism, in the Oxford dictionary I have here and other dictionaries I've used in the past define it as "political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs".

If you want to discuss the etymology of the word, thats cool... but I don't think its all that germane to the discussion.

I do. you are using a word that has a specific meaning to describe a political school of thought that has nothing to do with that meaning. I honestly suspect that LMNO is correct and that the only real reason for this is because being able to apply the term "anarchy" or "anarchist" to your* ideology makes it seem edgier and makes it more likely that girls who don't shave their armpits will have sex with you*.


* - general "you" referring to all "anarchists", not specific "you" applying to Ratatosk.

The Rule Of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) is a hard one to beat.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 07:15:21 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
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?

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 07:15:21 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
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

Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 07:28:24 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 07:15:21 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 07:02:30 PM
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)

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
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).

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.

Quote from: Regret on April 13, 2010, 10:36:08 PM

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.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 13, 2010, 11:04:18 PM
no

Then what is the point of the system?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 13, 2010, 11:04:18 PM
yes

how and why?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 13, 2010, 11:04:18 PM
no, its equal

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

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on April 13, 2010, 11:04:18 PM
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.

Quote from: RegretHow did human submissiveness evolve?

QuoteWhat 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.

<offtopicsomewhat>

Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on April 14, 2010, 10:29:37 PM
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>

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)

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?

Because not all retards are anarchists.

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

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

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

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 03:18:58 PM
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]

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?

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 03:46:02 PM
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?

Well that would depend on the group and on what was agreed to. At the most draconian, one could create a Fundamentalist Christian society, complete with "If your brother takes out your eye, take his out too." Or you could have a very liberal system "If you assault a fellow member of the collective, your participation in the collective will be annulled". Or something in between that involves mediation, social punishment (like shunning), or whatever else the group of individuals have agreed to.

Socialist anarchist systems don't eschew rules, they eschew the State that has the right to create new rules without direct consent, or a subgroup of individuals that gets to interpret/judge/implement/put themselves above the agreed to rules.

If you are part of a social collective that deals in bartering, in trade, in social responsibility (for healthcare etc) and you get shunned, how will that impact your ability to survive? In many tribal systems, shunning was pretty much a death sentence.

I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 03:59:11 PM
I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html) and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html)

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html)

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 03:59:11 PM
I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html) and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html)

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html)

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 04:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 03:59:11 PM
I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html) and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html)

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html)

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

Err... well as I have stated many times I am not advocating that Anarchism is best... or that we should change to it.

Individualist Anarchists would simply argue that the State has no right to make demands of other humans (If one man doesn't have the right to enslave another man, then 500 men under the label 'government' don't have that right either.)

Socialist Anarchists would argue that humans, all being born free and equal must have the right to select what system they want/choose to associate with, that some 300 year old contract, signed by a handful of wealthy white guys (most of whom aren't even our relatives) simply cannot be enforced on people who haven't agreed to the contract themselves.

So, in that view, its not a question of 'better', as much as they see the State as illegitimate.

If you're not advocating it, and it wouldn't be much better, and since you can voluntarily leave the US if you want to, isn't this all semantics?

Okay, so nothing prevents that from happening.  I attack a neighboring society, whose free will to participate in their own society is now null because I decided theirs sucked.  Either I keep doing this until I'm a dictator or other smaller societies begin banding together for protection.  Then maybe there's war.

Your most compelling argument here, and I understand you're simplifying it, is that people can't be trusted in any system.  If that's the case then a rule of law under some kind of constitution preventing such actions is ideal, isn't it?

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 04:49:22 PM
Okay, so nothing prevents that from happening.  I attack a neighboring society, whose free will to participate in their own society is now null because I decided theirs sucked.  Either I keep doing this until I'm a dictator or other smaller societies begin banding together for protection.  Then maybe there's war.

Your most compelling argument here, and I understand you're simplifying it, is that people can't be trusted in any system.  If that's the case then a rule of law under some kind of constitution preventing such actions is ideal, isn't it?

That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

I think you're getting too focused on the dictionary definition. Because that's clearly not what [some] anarchists actually believe.

Then they should find a different word.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM
no, anarchy is defined that way in the goddamn dictionary.

I am more interested in the philosophy labeled 'Anarchism', than the modern definition of a root word used by people over the past two centuries.

Telarus provided a very good response to the question. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24805.msg858407#msg858407

In short, it doesn't matter how the dictionary defined the noun anarchy. It matters what the political philosophers argue under that label. If you want a definition of Political Anarchism, then go do some research... many of the essays by Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and others are available online. They are pretty clear about the words they're using as defined in the sense they are using them.

IE: Don't eat the menu. The word is not the thing. etc etc etc

KETCHUP!  You blow up styrofoam cups!  Hovercraft!

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 03:43:37 PM
... No more so than  democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.

FTR - I never claimed that any of the above were any less retarded than anarchy, rather my position being that a state of anarchy would inevitably result in one or other.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 06:17:01 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 03:43:37 PM
... No more so than  democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.

FTR - I never claimed that any of the above were any less retarded than anarchy, rather my position being that a state of anarchy would inevitably result in one or other.

I don't know if it would, or if it wouldn't. I think most humans act in their own self interests and the fact that we haven't all killed each other may mean that we aren't all entirely horrible bastards. Humans have often worked well together without a State enforcing laws. There was lawlessness in the life of settlers and explorers who were colonizing west of the US in the 1700's and 1800's... but it wasn't the mainstay. Mostly humans tended to be helpful to one another, building settlements, towns etc.

Often they banded together to fight off the problem people. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't... But, it didn't result in some Gang ruling all of the future Ohio territory, or all of the future state of Tennessee. From what we know of the Scandinavian people, until the weather forced them to become raiders, they lived a decent life without warlords running roughshod over them.

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. I think humans can behave in a social system without some big State forcing them... but I don't know if the individuals would be willing or able to accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions.

"Sure I agreed to be part of this system and do X... but now I have *insert excuse here* and that shouldn't count against me!!! You're Mean!" seems far more prevalent to me than "Let's go off that whole group of people over there!"

....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?

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Humans have often worked well together without a State enforcing laws. There was lawlessness in the life of settlers and explorers who were colonizing west of the US in the 1700's and 1800's... but it wasn't the mainstay. Mostly humans tended to be helpful to one another, building settlements, towns etc.

Have you seen the HBO show Deadwood? It takes place 1870s in Deadwood, South Dakota, before and after joning Dakota territory. So there is no law for a good portion of the show. The bartender, who controls the booze and hos, seems to be the only authority figure for much of the show. Most of the first season is about the conflicts he has with the one guy who doesn't accept that authority.


It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
There was lawlessness in the life of settlers and explorers who were colonizing west of the US in the 1700's and 1800's... but it wasn't the mainstay.

Depends.  Arizona really WAS that bad.  Worse, even, then it was made out to be.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 06:37:13 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Humans have often worked well together without a State enforcing laws. There was lawlessness in the life of settlers and explorers who were colonizing west of the US in the 1700's and 1800's... but it wasn't the mainstay. Mostly humans tended to be helpful to one another, building settlements, towns etc.

Have you seen the HBO show Deadwood? It takes place 1870s in Deadwood, South Dakota, before and after joning Dakota territory. So there is no law for a good portion of the show. The bartender, who controls the booze and hos, seems to be the only authority figure for much of the show. Most of the first season is about the conflicts he has with the one guy who doesn't accept that authority.


It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

I believe I called that show Cursing, Tits, and Violence.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 06:37:13 PM

It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

Most wild West "gunfights" involved being shot in the back, shot while you were sleeping, etc.  Extremely dangerous and exciting, maybe, but not terribly pleasant.

A few people in boot hill cemetary in Tombstone are marked "Unknown", because they were shot as they got off the stagecoach, before anyone even knew who they were.  The famous Earp/McLaury vendetta wasn't a lawman/rustler battle, it was basically a gang war.  Within a year of settlement, there were no serious independent miners or cattlemen, just huge corporate mines with gigantic death tolls every year, due to horrible working conditions not necessary even in that day.

The wild West had very little to recommend it.  Still doesn't, come to think of it.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:24:08 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM
no, anarchy is defined that way in the goddamn dictionary.

I am more interested in the philosophy labeled 'Anarchism', than the modern definition of a root word used by people over the past two centuries.

Telarus provided a very good response to the question. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24805.msg858407#msg858407

In short, it doesn't matter how the dictionary defined the noun anarchy. It matters what the political philosophers argue under that label. If you want a definition of Political Anarchism, then go do some research... many of the essays by Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and others are available online. They are pretty clear about the words they're using as defined in the sense they are using them.

IE: Don't eat the menu. The word is not the thing. etc etc etc

:facepalm:

I think all this talk of Anarchism and Anarchists is really just giving too much undeserved attention to a school of thought that has no practical value whatsoever. From now on, anytime someone starts talking about Anarchy in any positive light I'm going to treat them exactly as I would if, say, they were telling me that if I'm a good juggalo, I'll go to the dark carnival when I die.

The dictionary definition of anarchy is irrelevant. Telarus already pointed out that it literally refers to people who are against the archons of athens. But it could mean "people who dance around the maypole" for all I care. We're discussing is what anarchists believe, not what they're called.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 07:01:09 PM
I think all this talk of Anarchism and Anarchists is really just giving too much undeserved attention to a school of thought that has no practical value whatsoever. From now on, anytime someone starts talking about Anarchy in any positive light I'm going to treat them exactly as I would if, say, they were telling me that if I'm a good juggalo, I'll go to the dark carnival when I die.

I sort of file it under the same heading as the mahdgjickque tards.  It doesn't actually work, but it makes the people advocating it feel better or smarter or whatever, so there's no real harm done.

Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 07:03:25 PM
The dictionary definition of anarchy is irrelevant. Telarus already pointed out that it literally refers to people who are against the archons of athens. But it could mean "people who dance around the maypole" for all I care. We're discussing is what anarchists believe, not what they're called.

Okay, so ask 10 anarchist what anarchy means.  You'll get 12 answers.

So, anarchists really are discordians, then.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 07:05:52 PM
So, anarchists really are discordians, then.

No, they share a trait with Discordians. 

It's like saying that some dogs are black and some cats are black.  They are both black, but that doesn't mean that the cats are dogs or the dogs are cats.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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?

Where the fuck did I say that?

If we're gonna have useful discussions quit arguing against stuff I haven't said.

To recap, things I have said:

1. Anarchism as stated in the OP is applicable only to individualist anarchism and is not applicable to various other forms of anarchism.

2. Anarchism presumes 'Order' no more or less so than other systems. At best it argues that humans can behave in an ordered way without some State forcing them to with threats.

3. I think the various forms of Anarchism have flaws as equally troubling as other systems... which is why I am not a individualist anarchist or a socialist anarchist.

4. From a Discordian perspective, I find the model labeled "Rational Anarchism" to make pretty much any system compatible with Discordian 'philosophy'.

However, it appears obvious that some people want to say that Anarchism = No Rules everything is crazy chaos and no matter what evidence is brought to bear, those perceptions don't seem likely to change. Therefore, I see no reason to continue the discussion.

Am I missing anything?

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 07:15:08 PM

2. Anarchism presumes 'Order' no more or less so than other systems. At best it argues that humans can behave in an ordered way without some State forcing them to with threats.

Some might be able to do that...But that's not how you bet.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
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.  Right there.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:02:15 PM
That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 07:23:53 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:02:15 PM
That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

He was equating the arguments used not the actions of the groups...

Oh fuck it... nevermind.

Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet. The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were obviously evil, on drugs and had no idea what they were talking about and certainly had no valid points to make.... and we can learn all of that from a dictionary, rather than reading the stuff these people wrote.

Does that fit with everyones filters now?

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 07:27:56 PM


Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet.

Really, I call that a pretty good Saturday evening... well maybe not the bullet part

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 07:27:56 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 07:23:53 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:02:15 PM
That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

He was equating the arguments used not the actions of the groups...

Oh fuck it... nevermind.

Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet. The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were obviously evil, on drugs and had no idea what they were talking about and certainly had no valid points to make.... and we can learn all of that from a dictionary, rather than reading the stuff these people wrote.

Does that fit with everyones filters now?

No.  The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were people who saw the evils inherent in the state, and tried to find an alternate solution.  They made the common mistake, however, of assuming that humans are first and foremost rational individuals, and not jumped-up monkeys with all the monkey wiring that comes along with it.

Marx and Engels made similar errors.  Rational people tend to think that everyone else is, in the end, rational.

I promised myself I would no longer engage in arguments about this kind of thing, but I would like to point out that anarchism has never been tried, so there's no way to know if it would work or not.  It's not a fact simply because you think so.  I am willing to agree that it might not (or probably wouldn't), but all the certainty about "it won't work" is a little premature. 

And to be honest, I can't ever see it happening unless it was somehow forced on everyone (crumbling of society or whatever)... it seems highly unlikely you would get everyone to agree to toss everything that has already been established.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 07:42:43 PM
I promised myself I would no longer engage in arguments about this kind of thing, but I would like to point out that anarchism has never been tried, so there's no way to know if it would work or not.  It's not a fact simply because you think so.  I am willing to agree that it might not (or probably wouldn't), but all the certainty about "it won't work" is a little premature. 

Its basic premise has been tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 07:42:43 PM
I can't ever see it happening unless it was somehow forced on everyone.

Ah!  Such irony!

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 07:49:13 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 07:42:43 PM
I can't ever see it happening unless it was somehow forced on everyone.

Ah!  Such irony!

Hail Eris!

Since I am apparently incapable of speaking clearly on the subject here are some links from better speakers than I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk) <----- Noam Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY&feature=watch_response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY&feature=watch_response)  <---- RAW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfF-nxjDi0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKfF-nxjDi0&feature=related)  <--- Alan Moore

They provide three different views, Noam's is the most detailed and discusses the process etc. Bob discusses how Anarchism influences his view of politics and Alan basically grabs pom-poms and cheers for it...

Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 07:56:49 PM
Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you responded with this.

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 07:56:49 PM
Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you responded with this.

Yeah, well, I posted a reasonable response (above), and he blew right past it and complained that nobody was being reasonable.

So you'll forgive me if I'm a little annoyed.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:12:15 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 07:56:49 PM
Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you responded with this.

Yeah, well, I posted a reasonable response (above), and he blew right past it and complained that nobody was being reasonable.

So you'll forgive me if I'm a little annoyed.

Forgiven.  :wink:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 07:33:12 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 07:27:56 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 07:23:53 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:02:15 PM
That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

He was equating the arguments used not the actions of the groups...

Oh fuck it... nevermind.

Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet. The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were obviously evil, on drugs and had no idea what they were talking about and certainly had no valid points to make.... and we can learn all of that from a dictionary, rather than reading the stuff these people wrote.

Does that fit with everyones filters now?

No.  The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were people who saw the evils inherent in the state, and tried to find an alternate solution.  They made the common mistake, however, of assuming that humans are first and foremost rational individuals, and not jumped-up monkeys with all the monkey wiring that comes along with it.

Marx and Engels made similar errors.  Rational people tend to think that everyone else is, in the end, rational.

Quotebumped, for those that missed it. 

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 14, 2010, 06:25:25 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on April 13, 2010, 10:51:08 PM
Rat,
is Rational Anarchy really a 'political view' if it doesn't prescribe specific policy?

It does have a specific policy, 'pick the action that you can live with, because it is your choice... your responsibility'. However, I think its possibly a meta-political view. A perception of any political system which I think makes that system more compatible with some of the ideas around Discordian philosophy.

It does make a few political positions, though. Individuals are personally responsible for their actions... no matter what fictional entity might be pretending to run the State. Ergo, its not the US government that is condoning assassinations... but rather it is every individual involved in that decision, from the President to the spag that fires the gun.There is no shared responsibility via some anonymous entity.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 14, 2010, 04:48:05 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 07:56:26 AM

In short, we all live in anarchy today.

This is my standard response to anyone who tries to convince me that anarchy is a good idea. "anarchy" in the - no rules and government - sense. What happens when we have perfect anarchy? No rules and government? The first thing, the very first thing that happens is the biggest, strongest, meanest motherfuckers impose rules and government. That's anarchy at it's finest - it's the only system currently possible. :lulz:

Well for individualist anarchism, you're probably right. For socialist anarchism systems, thats no more true than it is now. Anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules or no government, just that there is no coercion. For example, if all 50 states could choose their social system completely independantly and all citizens were free to choose which state they wanted to associate with, then that could easily be a form of socialist anarchy. If a group called Ohio says "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 5% of their income to cover medical needs for everyone in the collective" and another group called Indiana said "Anyone that would like to join our group is responsible for their own health care" and a group called Michigan said "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 8% of their income to cover medical needs and preventative medical education for everyone in the collective".... and everyone could choose of their own Free Will which group they would associate with (if any), then we have a basic system of Anarchy.

Most anarchist systems have some kind of rules. IF someone tells you that anarchy means 'no rules', then they are using a modern colloquialism, not the term used to discuss the political systems that fall under that umbrella.

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.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:24:31 PM

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 04:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 03:59:11 PM
I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html) and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html)

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html)

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

You are mixing arguements.  Rat was pointing out that the stated flaw in Anarchism exists in all other social systems.  The benefits of Anarchy didn't enter into it.  I would also argue that it is a lot harder to convince a group of freely associating people to get into a war of territorial aggression than it is to implement one from the top in a governed society, so an Anarchist society is not just no worse, in this situation, it is actually less bad.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:12:15 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on April 15, 2010, 08:10:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 07:56:49 PM
Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you responded with this.

Yeah, well, I posted a reasonable response (above), and he blew right past it and complained that nobody was being reasonable.

So you'll forgive me if I'm a little annoyed.

Who was?

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Also, none of the people defending Anarchy have said what you are trying to say we are saying.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 07:27:56 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 07:23:53 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 05:02:15 PM
That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

He was equating the arguments used not the actions of the groups...

Oh fuck it... nevermind.

Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet. The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were obviously evil, on drugs and had no idea what they were talking about and certainly had no valid points to make.... and we can learn all of that from a dictionary, rather than reading the stuff these people wrote.

Does that fit with everyones filters now?

Of course he's not talking about the actions of the groups, but he's calling the arguments used short sighted, foolish, and flawed in that comparison.  Here we go - defending anarchism is much like fucking a pig in its ass.  Now obviously you aren't fucking a pig in its ass but now your ideas are those of a pig fucker.  How is that not an insult?

And there it is again, this insinuation that because someone doesn't agree that anarchy is plausible they're somehow narrow minded.  Rat, you can get right off that fucking high horse you apparently think you're riding.  At no point did I respond to you with any hostility before this.  Even after that bullshit comment you laid out in response to my questioning.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

QuoteAlso, none of the people defending Anarchy have said what you are trying to say we are saying.

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

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:24:31 PM

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.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:31:15 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 04:33:52 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 04:30:18 PM

Quote from: EoC on April 15, 2010, 03:59:11 PM
I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html) and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html)

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html)

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

You are mixing arguements.  Rat was pointing out that the stated flaw in Anarchism exists in all other social systems.  The benefits of Anarchy didn't enter into it.  I would also argue that it is a lot harder to convince a group of freely associating people to get into a war of territorial aggression than it is to implement one from the top in a governed society, so an Anarchist society is not just no worse, in this situation, it is actually less bad.

Well, except for a couple of things:

1.  The flaws in anarchism are more readily susceptable to complexity, thus failure will happen sooner.  In today's society, it will fail immediately.

2.  "Freely associating people" won't occur, because we are wired as pack animals and thus REQUIRE alphas.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:24:31 PM

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.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

So you're advocating balkanization?  I'd like to refer you to the history of the territory once known as Yugoslavia.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:44:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:24:31 PM

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.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

Socialist Anarchy... poor Glenn Beck's heart would stop ticking if he ever got wind of it

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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."

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
Then they should find a different word.

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

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 15, 2010, 08:47:30 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
Then they should find a different word.

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

Point.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:47:22 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:24:31 PM

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.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

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

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
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.

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:51:05 PM


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.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:35:37 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:52:09 PM

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.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 08:54:28 PM

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.

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 08:54:28 PM
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.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:52:52 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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?

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 08:55:42 PM
Jesus, you guys are really intent on not fucking getting it.

Like I said, it's a religion.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 08:55:42 PM
A social/political framework of voluntary association is just rule by everybody,

In short, communism.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 09:00:04 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:52:52 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:47:16 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:45:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 08:43:17 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on April 15, 2010, 06:36:22 PM
....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?

I said it was monsters in charge of enforcing those rules,  he said a person is rational.  I assumed he was referring to the person in charge of enforcing the rules, or making them.

And i know he didn't say it explicitly, that's why I asked, rather than stating.  If he wasn't arguing for monarchy I am curious what he meant by the statement.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:55:36 PM
 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.

Now this thread grew a little too fast for me to make sure I read every post... I tried to but I may have missed some.
but that is generally my opinion. Any system which ignores human nature is bound to fail.
Communism ignores Greed, Fundamentalism ignores Sex, ect. For me most have what I read ignores the natural human feelings of seeking an authoritarian, or a system to stem their own fears. And there is also some bureaucratic drawbacks and it may be hard to progress through the sciences as such... ect.
You can draw some pretty horrible conclusions from my way in thinking.
But maybe the best way is not to adopt a philosophical outlook but to try to take from various philosophies things that make sense, ring true and would be beneficial and leave behind the rest for those for which that philosophy makes up a good part of their identity. Those people, baring a life changing event, can never drop their outlook.
And of course small ideas could be just as helpful in the small battles, which can be just as revolutionary and more realistic then the idealistic ones.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 08:55:42 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:35:37 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

bump for BH and Rat.

I've gotta leave for work in 20 minutes. I'm really hoping to get at least ONE actual answer to my criticisms before then.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

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.

This! The majority are followers and will go out of their way to find the nearest leader and take their cue from them. Thinking for themselves is avoided to the point of pathology. The minority (the alphas) will take advantage of this situation at any available opportunity. Self governement by anarcho-consensus provides just such an opportunity.

Would it be nice if it wasn't like this? Fuck yeah - anarchist utopia FTW! Will it be possible anytime soon? Fuck no - we're still monkeys and will be for the forseeable future.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 08:55:42 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 15, 2010, 08:35:37 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 05:02:28 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 02:59:19 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
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.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 06:55:13 PM
Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

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

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

Quoteconfusion 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.

bump for BH and Rat.

I've gotta leave for work in 20 minutes. I'm really hoping to get at least ONE actual answer to my criticisms before then.

Between your filters and mine that is unlikely.  I'll try though.

Yes, the eloquent, charismatic, and ambitious are going to have more impact than those who are not eloquent, charismatic, or ambitious.  That's a pretty basic facet of human nature.  I don't see that as a flaw in Anarchism or something that refutes it.  As you said, it is going to happen in any and all political systems.

Rule by everyone and rule by no one, are, as you pointed out, pretty much equivalent, and are the basic goals of Anarchists.

I don't get the same conclusion that you get, I don't see any connection between your two suppositions (which I accept) and your conclusion.  I think there is an unstated supposition in there that goes along the lines of "For Anarchy to work as stated no one person can have more influence than another" or "for Anarchy to work as stated we must eliminate ambition" or something.

What you call an unstated supposition, I call an implicit feature. This may be attributable to filters, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how any anarchist political model could work in the real world on a practical scale.

unless everyone were to, say, get to vote on policies and/or representatives that would be entrusted with drafting and enacting and interpreting and enforcing those policies.

I guess that would be the lesser of all evils. Now we just need to think of a catchy name for it...

ECH,
Republarchist.

There are basically 3 reasons to argue.

1.  To prevent the spread of an idea you find undesirable.

2.  To convince others of an idea you find desirable.

3.  To be an asshat.

When I am at GIM or GLP, I argue to be an asshat, because I think they're mostly idiots.  Unlike the anarchists here, the GLP/GIM crowd really IS the wannabe edgy Starbucks philosophy jerk, reading Ayn Rand and making sure everyone notices him doing it (and wondering why the chicks aren't trying to start up a conversation with someone as outre and dynamic as he is).

When I argue here, it's not to prevent the spread of anarchism, because it doesn't sell anyway.

I argue here to convince.  In this case, to convince smart people to stop wasting their time and energy on a concept that DOESN'T work, in favor of trying to find something that DOES.

But, as Requia has pointed out, intelligence has nothing to do with critical thinking, so I am not optimistic.

ETA:  Funny thing about GLP and GIM...For a crowd "dedicated to free association", both boards are quick to ban anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with the mods.  Just saying.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 09:44:20 PM
There are basically 3 reasons to argue.

1.  To prevent the spread of an idea you find undesirable.

2.  To convince others of an idea you find desirable.

3.  To be an asshat.

Fuck you for making me aware of my own bullshit! :argh!:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 09:48:42 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 09:44:20 PM
There are basically 3 reasons to argue.

1.  To prevent the spread of an idea you find undesirable.

2.  To convince others of an idea you find desirable.

3.  To be an asshat.

Fuck you for making me aware of my own bullshit! :argh!:

I had no choice.

It was for SCIENCE!

Then to hell with science! Give me back ignorant superstition, goddamnit!!  :x

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 15, 2010, 09:57:39 PM
Then to hell with science! Give me back ignorant superstition, goddamnit!!  :x

No, it's high time you Scots learned the Horrible Truth™.

Not the fact that golf is not a sport.  The other truth.

I keep seeing people talking about this or that system 'working' or 'not working'....
what is the metric for this, again?

Iptuous,
always a little slow.

Personal opinion. The real reason these arguments go on for so long.  :D

Quote from: Iptuous on April 15, 2010, 10:01:25 PM
I keep seeing people talking about this or that system 'working' or 'not working'....
what is the metric for this, again?

Whether or not a working model has been, or can be, achieved.  Using real people.

 :?
mebbe i'm just dense...
the metric for determining if a system 'works' is whether it can be moved from a 'working model' to being achieved...

so, what's a 'working model'?

Quote from: Iptuous on April 15, 2010, 10:19:40 PM
:?
mebbe i'm just dense...
the metric for determining if a system 'works' is whether it can be moved from a 'working model' to being achieved...

so, what's a 'working model'?

In this case, a functional society based on anarchic principles, on a scale useful for modern society.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 10:23:26 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on April 15, 2010, 10:19:40 PM
:?
mebbe i'm just dense...
the metric for determining if a system 'works' is whether it can be moved from a 'working model' to being achieved...

so, what's a 'working model'?

In this case, a functional society based on anarchic principles, on a scale useful for modern society.

And with the scale of modern society approaching that of an incredibly organised micromanaged termite mound, a practical implementation is unfeasible. Now the argument of anarchic cells when integrated into this view reveals something horrible.
Anarchic principles applied to pocket has the perquisite that the group be self sustainable... That the fuckers have money, its not like the rest of the world is going to give them stuff for free.
Anarchism goes from an interesting ideal, into a rare commodity only available to the rich. A status item.
In short anarchism is the Apple product of social structures. ianarchy anyone?

Quote from: Faust on April 15, 2010, 10:38:34 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 10:23:26 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on April 15, 2010, 10:19:40 PM
:?
mebbe i'm just dense...
the metric for determining if a system 'works' is whether it can be moved from a 'working model' to being achieved...

so, what's a 'working model'?

In this case, a functional society based on anarchic principles, on a scale useful for modern society.

And with the scale of modern society approaching that of an incredibly organised micromanaged termite mound, a practical implementation is unfeasible. Now the argument of anarchic cells when integrated into this view reveals something horrible.
Anarchic principles applied to pocket has the perquisite that the group be self sustainable... That the fuckers have money, its not like the rest of the world is going to give them stuff for free.
Anarchism goes from an interesting ideal, into a rare commodity only available to the rich. A status item.
In short anarchism is the Apple product of social structures. ianarchy anyone?

DING.

Though there is an element of anarchy in this Temporary Autonomous Zone thing I'm bouncing around, it's no substitute for a society, but rather a means to exist in almost any society as a free human being.

1) iNarchy.  I love it.

2) Dok, a suggestion: Instead of TAZ, a term which has been used and abused in the past, why not make the term more Science-y?  Maybe "Operating Room" or  "Secret Underground Lair"?

3) Hurov:  The "a person is rational, people are dumb" is an old trope, popularized by Men in Black, but existant much further back.  It's a comment on social dynamics.  And a Monarchy is not a single person acting alone, when looked at in pragmatic and historical terms.  A king has his pack of cabinet ministers and advisors and generals, just like any other tribal hierarchy. 

What I'm getting from all this is that it's a generally bad idea to support a political system that is centred around a single ideal, because everything else will suffer and the ideal itself will end up being a major victim of the proposed model. Eg. Communism/Equality, Anarchy/Freedom, Totalitarianism/Safety, Capitalism/Opportunity, Democracy/Satisfaction.

Thus, perhaps it is best not to pursue a particular ideal for the world so much as it's best to focus on our own activities and how we affect things locally. Perhaps it's best not to shackle ourselves to an ideology.
Of course, this should be a matter of course for Discordians.

The definition of Anarchy has always been up for interpretation, the most commonly held tenet, being the dissemination of organised Government.
So maybe we should split it into genres. We already have Anarcho-syndicalism, Rational Anarchy, Notional Anarchy, (and of course, Floating Anarchy)
So how about Me-narchy, (rule of me) You-narchy, (rule of you, ((Neither of which, need to be mutually exclusive.)) It's at this point, I wish my
Greek or Latin was better. Political systems always sound more credible in Latin or Ancient Greek. (Why is that?)

The redefinition of Western Democracy, is also long overdue, Maybe it could be renamed "Polyscatarchy". Or "Polycuniarchy".     

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 15, 2010, 09:29:51 PMI have yet to hear anyone explain how any anarchist political model could work in the real world on a practical scale.

unless everyone were to, say, get to vote on policies and/or representatives that would be entrusted with drafting and enacting and interpreting and enforcing those policies.

I guess that would be the lesser of all evils. Now we just need to think of a catchy name for it...

ECH,
Republarchist.

bump: because I found this x-posted somewhere and it got a ton of comments:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11621

Quote from: Cramulus on December 07, 2010, 06:46:54 PM
bump: because I found this x-posted somewhere and it got a ton of comments:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11621

Lol @ the cain is a catholic or greek orthodox comment. Very few comments tried to engage the piece and just attacked the author.

I'm lol @ a few of them who admitted that they stopped reading as soon as they came across something that didn't fit into their worldview, and also at the "wingnut" tag on the article.

Wheee!

Quote from: Cramulus on December 07, 2010, 06:46:54 PM
bump: because I found this x-posted somewhere and it got a ton of comments:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/11621

A few of those posters even read through the parts that conflicted with their worldview!

:aaa:

 :lulz:

They're gonna prove how I'm wrong about them being dogmatic fanatics through ad hominem attacks on me!

To be fair, this was pretty much the intended result of the essay.  There are several flaws within it, leaps of logic if you will which I could fill in, or amend....but basically, if it makes them froth at the mouth and act all crazy I'm inclined to keep it as is.  For posterity.

Quote from: Iptuous on April 15, 2010, 10:19:40 PM
:?
mebbe i'm just dense...
the metric for determining if a system 'works' is whether it can be moved from a 'working model' to being achieved...

so, what's a 'working model'?

I would add to this that it must be possible to approach the system incrementally.  You can argue that a fully implemented system would work, but regardless of whether or not this is true, a partially implemented system may still be a fucking disaster (see: deregulating the banks but preserving the Moral Hazard, for partially implemented libertarianism).

There's a shout out to Rat there too!

QuoteThis argument was from the latest issue of Intermittens, and opposite was a good argument against his points. I can't seem to find it right now, but if anyone wants to read a good rebuttal to Cain, it's out there.

All the comments seem to be coming from pseudo-intellectual hipsters, IMO.

Good article, Cain.

Quote from: Suu on December 08, 2010, 03:01:27 PM
All the comments seem to be coming from pseudo-intellectual hipsters, IMO.

Good article, Cain.

What Suu said.  :)

Why cain, o wait your not telling me...

:troll:

Quote from: Unqualified on April 16, 2010, 08:40:37 PM
What I'm getting from all this is that it's a generally bad idea to support a political system that is centred around a single ideal, because everything else will suffer and the ideal itself will end up being a major victim of the proposed model. Eg. Communism/Equality, Anarchy/Freedom, Totalitarianism/Safety, Capitalism/Opportunity, Democracy/Satisfaction. Discordianism/Dischord

Thus, perhaps it is best not to pursue a particular ideal for the world so much as it's best to focus on our own activities and how we affect things locally. Perhaps it's best not to shackle ourselves to an ideology.
Of course, this should be a matter of course for Discordians.

Amended.

:facepalm:

Discordianism has no ideal, and if it does that idea is not "discord".

"Lulz" is a much better candidate.

Quote from: East Coast Hipster on December 18, 2010, 12:38:48 PM
:facepalm:

Discordianism has no ideal, and if it does that idea is not "discord".

"Lulz" is a much better candidate.

(http://i.imgur.com/dhy0x.jpg)

I would agree with that while adding in the basis that the concept and practice of anarchism, like communism both rely rather heavily on the concept of people being perfectible which we're not, and also that everyone in that particular system wants to be a part of it which they do not.  Therefore there will always be those people that would try to get a leg up over the system and exert control of others, resources, or any number of things that folks happen to have a demand for.   Also true anarchy could never be realized because a system would still exist in the taboos and social mores that make up every culture and group of people. 

Anarchism seems to start with the premise that people are sucky to each other because of the machinations of the Rulers.

By removing the Rulers one frees people to be less and less sucky to each other. Because nobody can rise to a position of Rulership the king-rat syndrome will gradually diminish.

I cannot think of any large scale long lived example of this actually happening. I suspect that Hakim Bey was on the right track with his idea of the TAZ and being the closest form of pure anarchism that can exist.

I just don't understand why anybody would even WANT an anarchist system, even a realistically-impossible perfect one.

I mean, I guess it's great if you have no ambition, but I LIKE being better than most other monkeys, and I WANT to claw my way into a position where I can dominate and exploit the aforementioned inferior monkeys.

Quote from: The Ingenuous Hidalgo on January 06, 2011, 08:11:36 PM
Anarchism seems to start with the premise that people are sucky to each other because of the machinations of the Rulers.

By removing the Rulers one frees people to be less and less sucky to each other. Because nobody can rise to a position of Rulership the king-rat syndrome will gradually diminish.

I cannot think of any large scale long lived example of this actually happening. I suspect that Hakim Bey was on the right track with his idea of the TAZ and being the closest form of pure anarchism that can exist.

This makes me think of the ideas of the Situationists, which you might like.

Anarchy sounds like a fun place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. 

Reread the OP. Good stuff!

On second thought, let's not go to Anarchy. 'Tis a silly place.

It may be a problem of language, with the accepted political/philosophical use of Anarchy and Anarchism having been subsumed by the modern use of the term.

I use the term in relation to Bakunin, Goldman, Makhno (and Revolutionary Army of Ukraine), Durruti, Joe Hill etc. The modern usage seems mostly to in relation to brick throwing youths and failed third world states. This, for me, is like confusing Communism with Stalinism.

:fnord:

That redefinition was done on purpose. See the Toronto G20 Protests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY

Uncle Bob talks about Anarchism.