anarchy is stupid. who agrees?

[vyo476]

1) what do you mean so? does mass death mean nothing to you?

If it did, would you have anything more constructive to say then, "well you're an idiot then!"? You started a thread on anarchy and I responded the way most of the anarchists I've known would have. If you can't respond in kind, I'd have to wonder why you'd bother starting up the debate in the first place.

But I'll play devil's advocate. Let's say I don't care about other people dying in massive numbers. They're not my problem, after all.

2) people will seek protection. it starts out as clans or gangs then it becomes bigger and stronger and there will be power struggles and someone will rise.

And you know this...how?

3)they are idiots. that is not a fair world. the strong praying on the helpless is not fair. that is evil and stupid.

Law of the jungle, my friend. Each individual surviving entirely on his or her own merits without any social structure to support those incapable of doing for themselves.

4) noone on this website has but i thought it might be interesting to discuss.

You mean rail against, don't you?

In order to refute another person's point of view, you must first understand it. Do you understand anarchy? Do you understand anarchists?

5) all evidence proves human nature is evil. no i dont read his books. i dont care to.

"Evil" is a contrived metaphysical concept, an invention of the human mind, mildly subjective year to year and completely subjective between time periods. What is "evil" for one person could very well not be "evil" for another. A society that values anarchy, for instance, would probably not believe human nature to be "evil."

As authors go, Orwell is one of the most brilliant of the 20th Century. What do you read instead?

 

[arbitor]

1) this mass murder and chaos will effect you becuase you will be attacked and robbed as well. this will effect everyone. you wouldnt have any food or stores. you would struggle to survive and you would live in terrible poverty most likeley
2)uhhh...becuase people dont want to die?
3) the world is a much better place if we work together. its like the stone soup story. they all benefit by working together to make things better. every man for himself wont work. noone will prosper.

 

[arbitor]

4) anarchy is simple. the mentality is: lets all do what ever we want to without any laws.
5) cs lewis. he was brilliant too. and he believed human nature is evil. have you ever read "screwtape letters"?

 

[vyo476]

1) this mass murder and chaos will effect you becuase you will be attacked and robbed as well. this will effect everyone. you wouldnt have any food or stores. you would struggle to survive and you would live in terrible poverty most likeley

I'm "attacked" and "robbed" every day anyway. The difference is that you feel like this would be worse.

2)uhhh...becuase people dont want to die?

You may want to read up a little more on the nature of human socialization.

3) the world is a much better place if we work together. its like the stone soup story. they all benefit by working together to make things better. every man for himself wont work. noone will prosper.

The world is **** one way or the other. "Working together" just creates new problems. "Prosperity" is subjective; my singular goal in life may well be to live in the woods, killing my own food, without any human interference.

4) anarchy is simple. the mentality is: lets all do what ever we want to without any laws.

Nothing is simple.

Go deeper. The statement above does not demonstrate that you understand anarchy any more than reading a movie synopsis would mean you understand the movie.

5) cs lewis. he was brilliant too. and he believed human nature is evil. have you ever read "screwtape letters"?

I don't believe that one's on my bookshelf.

No response to the subjectivity of "evil"?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

anarchy is stupid in so many ways i dont know where to start. i doubt there are many on this site who support it becuase most people are not ignorant to their freedoms. if you disagree than give me your reasons. ive done this many times and the result has always been the same.

I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade, but could YOU define what YOU mean by anarchy, I find in my associations with people that the word is used in many ways.

Your signature line included marriage equality as called for in the US Constitution, is that "anarchy" in some way in your eyes?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

exactly. you can not trust people to govern themselves without limits. all that would result would be mass murder and chaos not to mention the inevitable reforming of governments which under these circumstances would probably be dictatorships. anarchy may seem nice in theory but it would NEVER EVER work, EVER. so promoting this is idiocy. these anarchists need to wake up and get back to reality. this shining future they want is unattainable as long as we have human nature (which you cant get rid of)

It can work and it has worked in tribal groups and religious groups where the people were philosophically in accord or where they were beset from the outside by social or environmental threats that encouraged cooperation.

Again, I think a close definition is going to be key to you making your point.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

its really not a matter of maturity. its a matter of moral perfection. you would need everyone agreeing on what is moraly correct and have everyone obey them. in order for it to work we would have to be moraly flawless. so saying we are not mature enough is implying that someday we will be able to pull off anarchy and still keep the society of man afloat. anarchy is simpley an attempt to make the perfect world. all attempts to make a perfect world (hitler, musilini and communism) only made it worse.

So what? How many failures did it take before people learned to fly? Or end slavery? Or conquer disease? It's called evolution because it is change over time, and this very change makes it possible that humans are perfectable creatures. Argue for your limitations and they will be yours.

Isn't Nature anarchy? Plants and animals have no laws and no enforcement beyond the limits of their own capabilities, why would it be different with humans? The fact that we have have more capabilities would simply broaden the areas activitiy--doesn't mean it would be bad, unless YOU have an agenda and want YOUR version of "law and order" to be the one imposed on everyone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

1) what do you mean so? does mass death mean nothing to you?
2) people will seek protection. it starts out as clans or gangs then it becomes bigger and stronger and there will be power struggles and someone will rise.
3)they are idiots. that is not a fair world. the strong praying on the helpless is not fair. that is evil and stupid.
4) noone on this website has but i thought it might be interesting to discuss.
5) all evidence proves human nature is evil. no i dont read his books. i dont care to.

1)So you DO have an agenda, you want the world to be fair and death to have meaning. Join a church.

3)Nature is stupid and evil?

5)The bolded statement above is false. A "preponderance" of evidence "suggests" perhaps, but not "all" or "proves". There are many examples of good people in the world.

 

[The Scotsman]

I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade, but could YOU define what YOU mean by anarchy, I find in my associations with people that the word is used in many ways.

......spot on MT!


Just a thought.....Do you recall the experiment where a group of volunteers are put into a free space with no other instructions other than to move around. Eventually the group is moving in the same direction at the same speed and even instep! Out of chaos comes order?

The human being is a herd animal, it is a heard animal not out of any political or social obligation but an anthropological necessity – survival. Anarchist and anarchism I assume is a term given to those that like to live in a state of chaos – a bit like my 12 year old son!! I digress..... Non-conformism has always been attractive to some but when you have a group of non-conformists all in the same group inhabiting the same space they eventually evolve and out of pure human nature stratify into the usual heirachical structures that they rejected in the first place.

 

[dahermit]

It can work and it has worked in tribal groups and religious groups where the people were philosophically in accord or where they were beset from the outside by social or environmental threats that encouraged cooperation.

Again, I think a close definition is going to be key to you making your point.

I respectfully disagree, I know of only one tribe of people that did/do not have a government. Even religious groups have a government(recognized leaders that constitute government). Even troops of baboons have a leader(alpha male) and high ranking males (privileged), and low ranking males and females, and infants(dictatorship).
Some religious groups might have a town meeting style democracy, but that is government not anarchy(no government).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I respectfully disagree, I know of only one tribe of people that did/do not have a government. Even religious groups have a government(recognized leaders that constitute government). Even troops of baboons have a leader(alpha male) and high ranking males (privileged), and low ranking males and females, and infants(dictatorship).
Some religious groups might have a town meeting style democracy, but that is government not anarchy(no government).

This is exactly why I asked the OP to define anarchy, it can be used more than one way. If a group of women live in a barracks they will eventually all ovulate at the same approximate time. The dominant female will be the one who sets the standard through a process we have not yet identified. Is that a form of government? Dominant mares in a horse herd constitute a government? Many indigenous people's used consensus, is that considered government? One can find hierarchies in almost all groups of animals, I'm not sure if that can be considered government or not. I have yet to see a definition of what we're discussing.

 

[arbitor]

we are discussing a world without leaders, limits or rules. we are talking about a world that's only rule is survival of the fittest and where the helpless are brutaly killed and weeded and humans revert to animalistic behavior. tell me, is that the kind of world you want for your children?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

we are discussing a world without leaders, limits or rules. we are talking about a world that's only rule is survival of the fittest and where the helpless are brutaly killed and weeded and humans revert to animalistic behavior. tell me, is that the kind of world you want for your children?

Okay, if that's all, then why are you against gay marriage?

 

[arbitor]

what? what does that have to do with this?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

what? what does that have to do with this?

Your signature line.