A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[Eater of Clowns]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

[Thurnez Isa]

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

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[hooplala]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[Cramulus]

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

[LMNO]

I can't ever see it happening unless it was somehow forced on everyone.

Ah!  Such irony!

[hooplala]

I can't ever see it happening unless it was somehow forced on everyone.

Ah!  Such irony!

Hail Eris!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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 <----- Noam Chomsky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQczen4rECY&feature=watch_response  <---- RAW
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...

[Doktor Howl]

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

[hooplala]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[hooplala]

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. 

[LMNO]

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.