On Anarchy:Chaos and Order page 2

53 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

anarchy ≠ Anarchism. also, who says Helltank actually knows what he’s talking about?

and no, anarchy is not the idea to overthrow the established order regardless of wether it works or not. i guess that would be sedition, or any other synonym.

anarchy is simply the state of their being no coercive authority. wether at the result of insurrection, or any other disbanding of a state or authority.

Definition of anarchism as of Merriam-Webster:
Anarchism:
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Definition of anarchist, Merriam-Webster:
Anarchist:
1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy ; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

right. although their definition of “Anarchist” is patently false. obviously, an Anarchist is someone that adheres to or desires Anarchistic principles, and is not defined by actions.
definition 1 is the definition of a revolutionary or insurgent, who can have any number of ideologies, hence can be a democrat, a regionalist, a nationalist, a repulican, a socialist, a secularist etc, and is in no way necessarily an Anarchist.
and definition 2 refers back to the definition of Anarchism (which is sound), and then says “especially” and refers back to the incredibly faulty definition 1.

just because they are a dictionary doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about either. it’s not just a word, it’s a concept, so for a more accurate definition, check an encyclopedia.

 
Flag Post
Anarchy cannot be viable. Never was viable

blanket claim.

We can’t live without rules or without someone who organizes people. We need hierarchy.

logical jump. how does needing to live with rules mean we need hierarchy? there are plenty of intitutions with rules that do not have a hierarchy. perhaps the Quakers are an example. and so would be the group of people you play hide-and-seek or tag with.

world where each of the 6 billion people

7 billion.

 
Flag Post

blanket claim.

Right back at you. What do you have to support the opposite of my claim, that anarchy can be viable? As i said, even animals don’t work with anarchy.


logical jump. how does needing to live with rules mean we need hierarchy? there are plenty of intitutions with rules that do not have a hierarchy. perhaps the Quakers are an example. and so would be the group of people you play hide-and-seek or tag with.

Anarchy says no to hierarchy and rules. Even wolfpacks have rules and hierarchy.


7 billion.


That’s 1 billion more rules, right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

right. although their definition of “Anarchist” is patently false. obviously, an Anarchist is someone that adheres to or desires Anarchistic principles, and is not defined by actions.
definition 1 is the definition of a revolutionary or insurgent, who can have any number of ideologies, hence can be a democrat, a regionalist, a nationalist, a repulican, a socialist, a secularist etc, and is in no way necessarily an Anarchist.
and definition 2 refers back to the definition of Anarchism (which is sound), and then says “especially” and refers back to the incredibly faulty definition 1.

just because they are a dictionary doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about either. it’s not just a word, it’s a concept, so for a more accurate definition, check an encyclopedia.

I don’t need to do that, instead of checking an encyclopedia i can check something better, reality. And the reality i see of anarchists is sore kids who have a problem with the world and all they do is cause trouble, destroy stuff and run like chickens when faced with “police brutality”.

 
Flag Post
Right back at you. What do you have to support the opposite of my claim, that anarchy can be viable? As i said, even animals don’t work with anarchy.

i’d say the default position about anything is “is not but could be”. i’d say if you want to claim something impossible, the burder of proof is on you.

and solitary animals do work with anarchy.

Anarchy says no to hierarchy and rules.

wrong. at least, the basic tenant of Anarchism is that you can have rules without hierarchy. not having rules is not called anarchy but is called anomie.

the reality i see of anarchists is sore kids who have a problem with the world and all they do is cause trouble, destroy stuff and run like chickens when faced with “police brutality”.

none of whom are Anarchists. well, some might be. but Noam Chomsky is not a sore kid, nor was Proudhon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

and solitary animals do work with anarchy.

Exactly. Anarchy is only really possible when there is just a single creature, all alone. Put two creatures of the same species together and a relationship will start to form – a power struggle.

 
Flag Post

i’d say the default position about anything is “is not but could be”. i’d say if you want to claim something impossible, the burder of proof is on you.

and solitary animals do work with anarchy.

I provided evidence to you about how even in nature anarchy isn’t the rule but the exception. Same thing that vikaTae did here:

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

and solitary animals do work with anarchy.


Exactly. Anarchy is only really possible when there is just a single creature, all alone . Put two creatures of the same species together and a relationship will start to form – a power struggle.

wrong. at least, the basic tenant of Anarchism is that you can have rules without hierarchy. not having rules is not called anarchy but is called anomie.

Is that so? Then why do anarchists say no to the police? Obviously if you have rules you need a group of people who will be there to enforce rules. Contradicting yourselves, don’t you? Also, let’s look past that. Let’s assume we have no hierarchy but we still have rules. So, who will make the rules? We don’t want hierarchy but we want rules, who will make the decision about the rules? Will we all 7 billion people come together and start throwing rules around? Someone needs to have law making power. And someone needs to have law enforcing power. Get it?


none of whom are Anarchists. well, some might be. but Noam Chomsky is not a sore kid, nor was Proudhon.


When they proclaim to be anarchists with pride i think it’s a bit hard not to take them as anarchists, right? Also, Proudhon wasn’t sore? You sure? Even anarchists don’t like Proudhon for his sexism and racism.

“Iain McKay, author of ‘An Anarchist FAQ’ (AK Press, 2007) has stated that:

This is not to say that Proudhon was without flaws, for he had many. He was not consistently libertarian in his ideas, tactics and language. His personal bigotries are disgusting and few modern anarchists would tolerate them – Namely, racism and sexism."
 
Flag Post

This thread is definitely about lawlessness, not Anarchy. Anarchy is a utopian lack of government where no one person has any power over any other person. Lawlessness is the absence of a powerful, legitimate government. What you are speaking about is not anarchy.
1. Government disappears
2. Someones take control and govern
3. They are now the government
It is not an anarchy now that persons have power over others, and thus is governing them.

Is that so? Then why do anarchists say no to the police? Obviously if you have rules you need a group of people who will be there to enforce rules. Contradicting yourselves, don’t you? Also, let’s look past that. Let’s assume we have no hierarchy but we still have rules. So, who will make the rules? We don’t want hierarchy but we want rules, who will make the decision about the rules? Will we all 7 billion people come together and start throwing rules around? Someone needs to have law making power. And someone needs to have law enforcing power. Get it?

Rules can be created and followed without an enforcement branch handling it. If nations sign a treaty saying not to use nuclear weapons, there is no nation with power forcing another nation to do it. The nations follow the rule under the pretense that everyone else signing the treaty will follow the rule too.

Let’s say that you and I live together. Let’s say that I leave the sink on and you never flush the toilet. If we were to sign a pact that we would both stop doing these things, then there is no enforcement of such a pact. The reason we follow the pact is because we know that if we stop following the pact, everyone else that follows the pact will stop as well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Anarchy says no to hierarchy and rules.

wrong. at least, the basic tenant of Anarchism is that you can have rules without hierarchy. not having rules is not called anarchy but is called anomie.

none of whom are Anarchists. well, some might be. but Noam Chomsky is not a sore kid, nor was Proudhon .

“I stand ready to negotiate, but I want no part of laws : I acknowledge none ; I protest against every order with which some authority may feel pleased on the basis of some alleged necessity to over-rule my free will. Laws : We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.
by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Funny, no?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ivan62300:

Anarchy is a utopian lack of government where no one person has any power over any other person.

In Democracy no person has power over the other. In Democracy every opinion, good or bad, weighs equally.

 
Flag Post
I provided evidence to you about how even in nature anarchy isn’t the rule but the exception. Same thing that vikaTae did here: [quote]

well the bottom line here is these solitary animals do live in anarchy, so, if we were to adopt more individualistic life-styles anarchy would be possible is basically your (and her) claim now.

of course, with our over-population we probably don’t have the space to stay out of eachothers’ hair. but anyway, ancient Athens had direct democracy, and that worked. direct democracy is basically a form of anarchy, because no-one in particular is in control. this wasn’t really the case in Athens, because only men that were over 30, not of slave status and born in Athens had the right to vote, which wouldn’t even make it count as democracy by modern standarts. but i don’t think the only way it worked was because so many people were excluded from voting.
also pirates lived more-or-less in anarchy. most of their lives was spend on pirate boats, where there was a captain. but the captain had on more authority than the amount of faith willfully placed in him by his crew, and even he had to submit to a majority ruling. also the pirates were free to get off the crew and join another if they pleased, whenever they were ported at a city, with no more obligations than they willingly subscribed to.
the supreme authority among pirates was the pirate code, which was an egalistic code, so really, closer to anarchy than anything.

Is that so? Then why do anarchists say no to the police? Obviously if you have rules you need a group of people who will be there to enforce rules. Contradicting yourselves, don’t you?

because police sucks. and not all anarchists do that, especially not without a specific reason to. they just don’t feel very obliged to comply. and just because someone disagrees with existing rules, doesn’t mean they object having any rules at all.

and again, not having rules is anomie, so if anything, the kind of people you are trying to protray would desire that, not just anarchy. maybe you could teach them.

When they proclaim to be anarchists with pride i think it’s a bit hard not to take them as anarchists, right?

no, not hard at all. many kids mistakenly use many terms without understanding what it actually means. when you get a little older, you get used to it.

Also, Proudhon wasn’t sore? You sure? Even anarchists don’t like Proudhon for his sexism and racism.

“Iain McKay, author of ‘An Anarchist FAQ’ (AK Press, 2007) has stated that:

This is not to say that Proudhon was without flaws, for he had many. He was not consistently libertarian in his ideas, tactics and language. His personal bigotries are disgusting and few modern anarchists would tolerate them – Namely, racism and sexism."

meh. ok, bad example.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ivan62300:



Is that so? Then why do anarchists say no to the police? Obviously if you have rules you need a group of people who will be there to enforce rules. Contradicting yourselves, don’t you? Also, let’s look past that. Let’s assume we have no hierarchy but we still have rules. So, who will make the rules? We don’t want hierarchy but we want rules, who will make the decision about the rules? Will we all 7 billion people come together and start throwing rules around? Someone needs to have law making power. And someone needs to have law enforcing power. Get it?

Rules can be created and followed without an enforcement branch handling it. If nations sign a treaty saying not to use nuclear weapons, there is no nation with power forcing another nation to do it. The nations follow the rule under the pretense that everyone else signing the treaty will follow the rule too.

Let’s say that you and I live together. Let’s say that I leave the sink on and you never flush the toilet. If we were to sign a pact that we would both stop doing these things, then there is no enforcement of such a pact. The reason we follow the pact is because we know that if we stop following the pact, everyone else that follows the pact will stop as well.

The fear of a nuclear disaster is the thing keeping them at check. Also, your other example about the pact between people, that is supported by the idea that we will respect each other. In a world where seemingly no one respects another person it is a bit out of line to base our rules on people’s good attitude. Especially when the group trying to promote such believes is one group with the most extreme behavior out there.

 
Flag Post

In the case of two countries signing a treaty not to use nukes, someone is enforcing it, otherwise there would be no problem with one side breaking the treaty if they felt like it. An unenforced treaty would have no repurcussions.


Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
I provided evidence to you about how even in nature anarchy isn’t the rule but the exception. Same thing that vikaTae did here: [quote]

well the bottom line here is these solitary animals do live in anarchy, so, if we were to adopt more individualistic life-styles anarchy would be possible is basically your (and her) claim now.

No. not just more individualistic. We would have to segregate ourselves from any other humans. Only by being solitary, do we gain an anachical existence. Even a mother and her child is a system of hierarchy. Two partners form an organised structure; usually hierarchical. In nature it almost always is hierarchical. There are always power plays at work in relationships, regardless.

So, only by doing away with all of that baggage and living a solitary existence, could we be anarchical.

 
Flag Post
Exactly. Anarchy is only really possible when there is just a single creature, all alone. Put two creatures of the same species together and a relationship will start to form – a power struggle.

tell that to the Spanish anarcho syndicalists.

“I stand ready to negotiate, but I want no part of laws : I acknowledge none ; I protest against every order with which some authority may feel pleased on the basis of some alleged necessity to over-rule my free will. Laws : We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.
by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Funny, no?

so? ok Proudhon didn’t like laws. i bet most Anarchists don’t. that doesn’t mean we don’t recognise the need for organisation, and that organisation requires rules and policies. we just don’t recognise that it requires authority. the laws we are faced with does assume authority.

 
Flag Post

well the bottom line here is these solitary animals do live in anarchy, so, if we were to adopt more individualistic life-styles anarchy would be possible is basically your (and her) claim now.of course, with our over-population we probably don’t have the space to stay out of eachothers’ hair.

Since we don’t live at a time when we can only depend on ourselves and disregarding all others, your argument holds no water. Even for the simpliest thing, like treating yourself at the doctor, the doctor right there has some kind of control and authority over you.


but anyway, ancient Athens had direct democracy, and that worked. direct democracy is basically a form of anarchy, because no-one in particular is in control. this wasn’t really the case in Athens, because only men that were over 30, not of slave status and born in Athens had the right to vote, which wouldn’t even make it count as democracy by modern standarts. but i don’t think the only way it worked was because so many people were excluded from voting.

In ancient Athens there was a little something called “ostracizing”. They wrote the names of people with dangerous believes and the people with many votes were exiled. That’s not very anarchistic now, is it? More like right-wing. Maybe that’s why Ancient Athens pulled democracy off. They knew how to combine ideas that today are labeled and categorized and grouped up differently.

also pirates lived more-or-less in anarchy. most of their lives was spend on pirate boats, where there was a captain. but the captain had on more authority than the amount of faith willfully placed in him by his crew, and even he had to submit to a majority ruling. also the pirates were free to get off the crew and join another if they pleased, whenever they were ported at a city, with no more obligations than they willingly subscribed to.
the supreme authority among pirates was the pirate code, which was an egalistic code, so really, closer to anarchy than anything.

Come on now, pirates were outlaws. Also, the pirate captain was pretty much the big dog. Mutinies were frowned upon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
“I stand ready to negotiate, but I want no part of laws : I acknowledge none ; I protest against every order with which some authority may feel pleased on the basis of some alleged necessity to over-rule my free will. Laws : We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.
by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Funny, no?

so? ok Proudhon didn’t like laws. i bet most Anarchists don’t. that doesn’t mean we don’t recognise the need for organisation, and that organisation requires rules and policies. we just don’t recognise that it requires authority. the laws we are faced with does assume authority.

Well if you do, you have a weird way of showing it.

 
Flag Post

I would equate a pirate crew pretty much like a pack of wolves, or a human street gang. There’s an alpha leader who fights to get to the head of the pack. The toughest, strongest, or most wildly insane. Once there, the alpha maintains their lead by continually showing they are the best. For the most part the other members bow down to this leadership, but every so often there is a power struggle where another member rises up to challenge the leader’s dominance. They’ve almost always aquired a following of their own, that following being subservient to that individual.

Whoever emerges victorious in the battle, is the alpha.

 
Flag Post
No. not just more individualistic. We would have to segregate ourselves from any other humans. Only by being solitary, do we gain an anachical existence. Even a mother and her child is a system of hierarchy. Two partners form an organised structure; usually hierarchical. In nature it almost always is hierarchical. There are always power plays at work in relationships, regardless.

So, only by doing away with all of that baggage and living a solitary existence, could we be anarchical.

no that’s being FAR too absolutist. by suggesting that a parent having some kind of household authority means the society is not anarchic, you’re being WAY too absolutist. by the very same token, we also don’t live in a Democracy, because kids don’t get to vote over a lot of things; or you could say that we are not capitalistic, because children get a weakly allowance handed out by their parents.

simplistically, for any system, all it needs to be anarchic is not have a coercive authority at the very top of it that can’t be challenged. everything else is just degrees. and jet-black is still black.


I would equate a pirate crew pretty much like a pack of wolves, or a human street gang. There’s an alpha leader who fights to get to the head of the pack. The toughest, strongest, or most wildly insane. Once there, the alpha maintains their lead by continually showing they are the best. For the most part the other members bow down to this leadership, but every so often there is a power struggle where another member rises up to challenge the leader’s dominance. They’ve almost always aquired a following of their own, that following being subservient to that individual.

Whoever emerges victorious in the battle, is the alpha.

there’s a lot more to the pirate way than that. plus, it could be argued that a continuous free-for-all struggle for dominance is quite anarchic, if undesirable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

there’s a lot more to the pirate way than that. plus, it could be argued that a continuous free-for-all struggle for dominance is quite anarchic, if undesirable.

If you try to dominate others, you are not an anarchist. You try to reach the top even though you don’t want a top. How does that work?

 
Flag Post

true, an Anarchist wouldn’t want that. there are many forms of anarchy that an Anarchist wouldn’t want.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

true, an Anarchist wouldn’t want that. there are many forms of anarchy that an Anarchist wouldn’t want.

I am not really sure how to respond to that.

 
Flag Post

if you love cats, you may want to live in a society with lots and lots of cats. well, if we make cats our only food source, we will have lots and lots of cats, and yet no cat lover will want that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

simplistically, for any system, all it needs to be anarchic is not have a coercive authority at the very top of it that can’t be challenged. everything else is just degrees. and jet-black is still black.

And, any system can be looked at in isolation. If any one part of that system has a leader in control of it, then the system is not anarchic. So, in the case of a mother and her child, if there is a leader and someone who obeys, it is not anarchic. There is an authority at the top whose word is final.

Any group with a leader is in the same situation. The leader’s word is final. therefore that particular system is not anarchy. Any partnership is in the same boat – there is a person with power (could be either) whose word is final. So, not anarchy. So on and so forth.

For anarchy to be anarchy, no subsystem of it can be hierarchical.


Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

true, an Anarchist wouldn’t want that. there are many forms of anarchy that an Anarchist wouldn’t want.

That’s just bullshit, and you know it.


Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

if you love cats, you may want to live in a society with lots and lots of cats. well, if we make cats our only food source, we will have lots and lots of cats, and yet no cat lover will want that.

If you are willing to kill and eat the cats, then you don’t exactly love them (except as a tasty meal). You love your parents. Does it then follow that you would happily skin and eat your parents?

 
Flag Post
And, any system can be looked at in isolation. If any one part of that system has a leader in control of it, then the system is not anarchic. So, in the case of a mother and her child, if there is a leader and someone who obeys, it is not anarchic. There is an authority at the top whose word is final.

great, your family is not anarchic. your family also isn’t democratic. doesn’t mean shit for the society you live in.

Any group with a leader is in the same situation. The leader’s word is final.

adding to your premise. not every type of leader is the type of leader who’s word is final.

For anarchy to be anarchy, no subsystem of it can be hierarchical.

that is patently ridiculous. have you read anything i’ve said?

That’s just bullshit, and you know it.

what? no, it absolutely is not. what are you talking about?

If you are willing to kill and eat the cats, then you don’t exactly love them (except as a tasty meal). You love your parents. Does it then follow that you would happily skin and eat your parents?

uhm…yes, that’s my point.

 
Flag Post

People have no idea what anarchy is. Without law everybody would have to be a gunfighter. If you weren’t strong enough to protect your home, someone could just kill you and take it from you.

Eventually things would balance out and we’d have communities of “good guys” and “bad guys” who would be in constant conflict with each other. The economy would collapse. The infrastructure of modern civilization would begin to crumble.

Anarchy is the pipe dream of motorcycle gangs, and idealists who think laws don’t prevent crime.