Real Anarchy is Real Pacifism

[globefront]

What is most unique among the varying ideologies was what is offered in Anarcho-Pacifism. In this type, you cannot preach the true righteousness of an Anarchist society - as opposed to the inherent violence and immorality of the state - unless you are non-violent and peaceful in nature. Further, the violence perpetrated by the anti-government protestors in Egypt would be directly opposed by those who support the ideas of peaceful resistance at all costs, rather than stopping the state at all costs (including violent overthrow and demonstration). To a pacifist who also believes that government is illegitimate by its very nature because of its “lawful” coercion of others to follow its own ideology; anarcho-pacifism would consequently not support coercion of any kind – even on their part for their ends. This is where the other schools of anti-government philosophy isolate their own outcast in the pacifist of the group.

But as always, the role of violence and beating back the corrupt state has always been a turning point for Anarchist philosophy. Is violence (a form of coercion) acceptable under the circumstance of resisting the state which they see as one of the ultimate evils perpetrated on society?

If true anarchism is total opposition to force and coercion that the state commands over society than wouldn’t engage in these same acts be a violation of what anarchism is trying to achieve? In order to stop of the proliferation of the state into our lives, is violence and force necessary to achieve it? Since according to most all anarchists, government is inherently coercive; than Anarchy and Pacifism must go hand-in-hand in order to separate itself from the immorality of the state.

Once we get passed the idea that true anarchism is pacifistic resistance against the organized violence that is inevitable of all governing systems, than we must bring into play the most played out debate of all: the Ends and the Means. In the special case of a peaceful anarchy philosophy, the means are the ends and the ends are the means. The means act as an expression of the values an anarchist group wishes upon society, but also does not force another into. Their ends are, consequently, a society in which no system of power forces its values or agendas on others as well. By supporting this structure, anarcho-pacifists are simultaneously fulfilling their ends by continuing their means of non-violence and non-coercion.

Perhaps it requires a deeper look. Most of all, when one finally realizes that not all Anarchy can or should be labeled as bad, violent or destructive to morality and society; we can begin to comprehend how a truly consistent anarchist must always be a consistent pacifist if they wish to bring Real change…

 

[Rick]

Nonsense.

With anarchy, the fundamental duty of the state, to protect its citizens from aggression, goes unfulfilled. Then its just the weak preying on the strong.

 

[Apathy]

Nonsense.

With anarchy, the fundamental duty of the state, to protect its citizens from aggression, goes unfulfilled. Then its just the weak preying on the strong.

You're nonsense. The government has never protected anyones rights all they manage to is violate them.*cough*John Adams*cough* The system we have now is the strong preying on the weak, the majority imposing its values on the minority by force. People who say anarchy is chaos have little understanding of what the theory is.

The state FAILS at protecting the right of the individual... The market has been proven to provide services and good much cheaper than the government so we should let the market protect our rights. Also with out government you rights will not be subject to the whims of the electorate.

 

[Rick]

You're nonsense. The government has never protected anyones rights all they manage to is violate them.*cough*John Adams*cough*

Did it defend the country from aggression in WWII? Uh.......er........lemme think.........hard ta remember...............OH! YES!!

The system we have now is the strong preying on the weak, the majority imposing its values on the minority by force. People who say anarchy is chaos have little understanding of what the theory is.

dictionary.com

an·ar·chy   /ˈænərki/ [an-er-kee]
–noun

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

OH WAIT!!! I forgot - you make up meanings for words.

The state FAILS at protecting the right of the individual... The market has been proven to provide services and good much cheaper than the government so we should let the market protect our rights.

The market ALWAYS needs the state to protect property rights, and courts to enforce contracts - you don't know what you're talking about, but what else is new.

 

[Apathy]

1)Did it defend the country from aggression in WWII? Uh.......er........lemme think.........hard ta remember...............OH! YES!!




2)dictionary.com

an·ar·chy   /ˈænərki/ [an-er-kee]
–noun

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

OH WAIT!!! I forgot - you make up meanings for words.



3)The market ALWAYS needs the state to protect property rights, and courts to enforce contracts - you don't know what you're talking about, but what else is new.

1) You mean that war caused by conflicting Government?

2) Ill take the theory as presented by Anarchist Philosophers any day over a half-assed dictionary definition. The #3 definition is probably the best but it is half done.

Your ad hominem shows you are already running out of an argument kind of amusing considering we just started.

3) The government doesnt protects your property rights... Any one who has ever paid taxes knows they take the property they want from individuals using coercion. When the government violates property rights its justified but when individuals do it, it is theft. How about some consistencies?

You can privatize courts, defense etc... Just because the government currently holds monopolies in these areas doesnt mean that is how it should be.

 

[globefront]

- Apathy - thanx for the rational backup lol. The very reason we are in the socio-political mess we are in now is because of people like "Rick" who won't even intellectualize the idea of Peace and lack of government in the same sentence...

I'm guessing he also votes Democrat or Republican every election too...

 

[Apathy]

- Apathy - thanx for the rational backup lol. The very reason we are in the socio-political mess we are in now is because of people like "Rick" who won't even intellectualize the idea of Peace and lack of government in the same sentence...

I'm guessing he also votes Democrat or Republican every election too...

The logic never has followed for me...

Person A: The government protects us from acts of force and aggression

Person B: How?

Person A: Through acts of force and aggression.

Person B: You're joking right?


I cannot in good conscience defend the existence of the state.

 

[Rick]

1) You mean that war caused by conflicting Government?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttt????????? Speak english please.

2) Ill take the theory as presented by Anarchist Philosophers any day over a half-assed dictionary definition. The #3 definition is probably the best but it is half done.

OK - you admit to making up definitions - that was easy. Here, let me try: anarchy is raping little girls.

As for number 3, it hits the nail on the head - the idea that people would VOLUNTARILY to cooperate flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of human history. OOPS! Forgot - you haven't read history.

3) The government doesnt protects your property rights... Any one who has ever paid taxes knows they take the property they want from individuals using coercion. When the government violates property rights its justified but when individuals do it, it is theft. How about some consistencies?

The government has a legitimate right to get taxes for its legitimate services. That governments have always exceeded their just prerogatives doesn't obviate the fact that there IS a legitimate place for taxes.

You can privatize courts

OK - now you're in La La Land.

 

[Rick]

- apathy - thanx for the rational backup .

blaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha hee hee giggle snicker hee hee hawwwww!!

 

[Apathy]

1)Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttt????????? Speak english please.



2)OK - you admit to making up definitions - that was easy. Here, let me try: anarchy is raping little girls.

3)As for number 3, it hits the nail on the head - the idea that people would VOLUNTARILY to cooperate flies in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of human history. OOPS! Forgot - you haven't read history.



4)The government has a legitimate right to get taxes for its legitimate services. That governments have always exceeded their just prerogatives doesn't obviate the fact that there IS a legitimate place for taxes.



5)OK - now you're in La La Land.

1) You're being sophomoric. Anyway you obviously have no counter argument so you conceded the point.

2) Obviously a childish accusation with no basis in reality.

3) argumentum ad hominem

4) Tax is theft there is no legitiment form of coercion

5) Truly you can do better than this... Another ad hominem fallacy.

Sense you are not presenting any argument it is safe to assume you have no argument. Therefore you concede the debate.

 

[globefront]

Im glad such a topic about Pacifism has sparked such animosity

 

[Dr.Who]

If a group of anarchist decided to exercise pacifistic resistance against organized violence would they not have become a governing system?

But if an individual decided to exercise pacifistic resistance against organized violence would he not be ineffective at best or just dead?

Perhaps his death would inspire others to follow his cause? With no organization could they be effective? With organization would they not be a governing system?

Could a wave of self-directed but other-inspired pacifistic resistance overcome organized violence? This movement would not be a government. Though the organized violence would be a governing system of some sort.

This movement could have been operating for a long time already. It could be inspired by Jesus or John Locke. I bet it has been and already is doing its part. But so far it has failed to put an end to organized violence.

I think those who ascribe to this particular idealized notion of anarchy should set the best example they can and live their lives in as peaceful a way as they can. They can be Jesus' salt of the earth.

But I fail to see why they cannot operate in the presence of government and I fail to see why they themselves cannot organize to increase their effectiveness? They would cease to be anarchists but they could still be pacifists. I see little value in the anarchy but much in the pacifism.

 

[Rick]

This pacifist-anarchist idea would only work if everyone, every last single person, agreed to it. Obviously, that won't happen. All systems of social organization (or disorganization ) have to take into account the actual nature of human beings.

 

[Dr.Who]

This pacifist-anarchist idea would only work if everyone, every last single person, agreed to it. Obviously, that won't happen. All systems of social organization (or disorganization ) have to take into account the actual nature of human beings.

It is a shame that Globefront seems to have been just passing through so we probably won't see his defense.

If he were here I would mention to him that I thought I perceived verbal violence in his posts. Once there is verbal violence hasn't the ideal anarchist-pacifist state of being already been destroyed?

I am afraid that it is human nature to exhibit evil (alongside good) and the anarchist ideal can only exist in theory. John Lock used the theoretical anarchist ideal as a starting point to determine what basic rights should be.

Rick, you were right that the primary function of the state should be to protect those rights.

Apathy, in theory I applaud your rejection of the states we see because it they have failed to protect those rights. You have recognized the very reason our founding fathers gave for declaring independence from the Monarchy. And I suppose it must be wonderful to by so idealistic. But just as our founding fathers would have preferred to have established no government to replace the Monarchy they felt they were forced to because if they did not someone else would.

Our government is not perfect but the alternative would be to live under someone else's idea of government.

An interesting and relevant quote:

" If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Federalist No. 51

 

[Rick]

Communism was a whole system based on a flawed perception of human beings. Early in the 20th century, the soviet marxists postulated a "new man":

wiki:

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man. This required intellectualism and hard discipline.[6] He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery -- a belief that required the rejection of both innate personality and the unconscious, which Soviet psychologists did therefore reject.[7] He treated public property with respect, as if it were his own.[8] He also has lost any nationalist sentiments, being Soviet rather than Russian, or Ukrainian, or any of the many other nationalities found in the USSR.[9] His work required exertion and austerity, to show the new man triumphing over his base instincts.[10] Alexey Stakhanov's record-breaking day in mining coal caused him to be set forth as the exemplar of the "new man" and the members of Stakhanovite movements tried to become Stakhanovites.[11]

Of course, there never was any such man and never will be, outside the usual relatively small pack of zealots, who impose statist control over everyone when they see normal people won't voluntarily become a "new man".

The communists then, the islamofascists now.