A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[BabylonHoruv]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[Thurnez Isa]

 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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

confusion in general; disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.

[BabylonHoruv]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

confusion in general; disorder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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!

[Doktor Howl]

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!

I had no choice.

It was for SCIENCE!

[P3nT4gR4m]

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

[Doktor Howl]

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

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

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

[Elder Iptuous]

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.

[P3nT4gR4m]

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

[Doktor Howl]

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.

[Elder Iptuous]

 
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'?