Page 1 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

29 Jan 2010, 2:03 pm

So, the best label for me would be philosophical anarchist.
I don't preach for a revolution that the public don't want, but I still don't think that anybody is morally obliged to follow his regime.

I've wondered, because autistic people are supposed to have less herd mentality - how would you define yourself?

I'm tolerant to other opinions. I have my opinions myself, but am against dichotomy. For example:

I guess I'm partailly racist - because I can have a negative stigma when seeing a different person. But I'm also anti-racist - because I don't think I have the right to make him suffer because of this, or that he doesn't deserve equal rights. And even if my mind tells me to stay away, because statistically there's a chance that person won't be nice - I give him an oppurtunity, and I believe it's not his peoples' fault that they are more violent, but the government's.

I can understand people who think that money is good, because it gives reinforcement, and motivation. Yet, I don't think we should say "what the hell" when the homeless are freezing to death, I want to help them.

I'm not against business and not against a business getting bigger - but I can't accept the corporation-regime we have right now. I don't think it's wrong for a business to open more branches, but I refuse to let this business to exploit teenagers who work for it, and lie to the public.

I'm not opposed to emotions of national identity, but I hate it when it makes you hate other people. I fully acknowledge the right of people to live in Israel if they feel attached to this land because of their beliefs or national feelings - but I don't think it has anything to do with preventing Palestinians their own right to self-definition.

I think all drugs should be legal - well, I'm an anarchist, I don't believe anything should be illegal - because it's people own right to decide if they want to use drugs. Still, I wouldn't sell drugs myself to 10 year olds, because I don't believe they understand it, and I want schools to teach them about it.

Anyone else here who's an anarchist, in the liberal sense of the word - yet doesn't accept anything done in the name of liberalism?



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

29 Jan 2010, 2:27 pm

Anarchy is probably the best philosophy I have ever come across. The problem with it is the constant propaganda directed at it. For instance: "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."--James Madison. And we all have to read "Lord of the Flies."
I believe that a lot of human beings can handle anarchy. It's the other 20% who ruin it for the rest of us. If we tried anarchy, natural selection and social pressure would take care of those who would cause trouble, but that goes against my general philosophy and a lot of peoples moral codes.
I think anarchy is great though, and I can't stand the bad reputation it has, nor all those punk rock kids who think it sounds cool to call themselves anarchists without a clue what it actually means.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 2:30 pm

I agree. Peaceful anarchy is idealism though. I don't like politics too much. It would be nice if people could just be trusted as individuals. It all starts there. Idealism is a tricky thing.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:56 pm

Philosophical anarchism is correct. Most arguments to give most rules legitimacy or governments legitimacy are very questionable, and some seem to beg the question.



Omerik
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

29 Jan 2010, 2:57 pm

fidelis wrote:
Anarchy is probably the best philosophy I have ever come across. The problem with it is the constant propaganda directed at it. For instance: "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."--James Madison. And we all have to read "Lord of the Flies."
I believe that a lot of human beings can handle anarchy. It's the other 20% who ruin it for the rest of us. If we tried anarchy, natural selection and social pressure would take care of those who would cause trouble, but that goes against my general philosophy and a lot of peoples moral codes.
I think anarchy is great though, and I can't stand the bad reputation it has, nor all those punk rock kids who think it sounds cool to call themselves anarchists without a clue what it actually means.

"Lord of the Flies" is a book which I despise - it describes a bunch of kids used to having a regime controlling them, and tells how they can't function alone. What does that have to do with anarchy...?

Of course, if your children think they have to have some government, and otherwise there would be chaos, they wouldn't be able to function without this government. When you tell them they can't steal because it's illegal, and can't murder because it's illegal - they have no moral codes or understanding, they're just robots who follow orders.

I don't litter, for example, for my reasons - even though no one would arrest me for that. I think that we should stop transforming our children from innocent beings to lying, manipulating, disrespectful brats, and then anarchy will come for itself.

(Besides, in a real anarchy, those children from the Lord of the Flies book would have adults)



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

29 Jan 2010, 10:00 pm

Omerik wrote:
fidelis wrote:
Anarchy is probably the best philosophy I have ever come across. The problem with it is the constant propaganda directed at it. For instance: "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."--James Madison. And we all have to read "Lord of the Flies."
I believe that a lot of human beings can handle anarchy. It's the other 20% who ruin it for the rest of us. If we tried anarchy, natural selection and social pressure would take care of those who would cause trouble, but that goes against my general philosophy and a lot of peoples moral codes.
I think anarchy is great though, and I can't stand the bad reputation it has, nor all those punk rock kids who think it sounds cool to call themselves anarchists without a clue what it actually means.

"Lord of the Flies" is a book which I despise - it describes a bunch of kids used to having a regime controlling them, and tells how they can't function alone. What does that have to do with anarchy...?

Of course, if your children think they have to have some government, and otherwise there would be chaos, they wouldn't be able to function without this government. When you tell them they can't steal because it's illegal, and can't murder because it's illegal - they have no moral codes or understanding, they're just robots who follow orders.

I don't litter, for example, for my reasons - even though no one would arrest me for that. I think that we should stop transforming our children from innocent beings to lying, manipulating, disrespectful brats, and then anarchy will come
(Besides, in a real anarchy, those children from the Lord of the Flies book would have adults)


It has to do with the propaganda. People read this book and only see the literal side of the story. A bunch of brats used to rules suddenly losing them and becoming savages. A lot of people see this as an attack on anarchy. It is a actually more of a satire in favor of anarchy, but the masses don't look that deeply into it, and just see it as an attack. I used it, again, as an example of propaganda and not anarchy. I guess I could have made that a little more clear. sorry about that.

I wish that book wasn't required reading. It has spawned so many arguments with my class and teachers. They should just leave it for college, a time when people aren't only allowed to give their opinion, but are encouraged.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Jan 2010, 11:29 pm

All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 11:33 pm

Sand wrote:
All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.

Prove it. (not that anarchy won't work, or that spam and viruses exist, only that the existence of spam and viruses prevents all societal designs that could be labeled "anarchy" from meaningfully existing)



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Jan 2010, 11:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.

Prove it. (not that anarchy won't work, or that spam and viruses exist, only that the existence of spam and viruses prevents all societal designs that could be labeled "anarchy" from meaningfully existing)


What kind of proof are you looking for? The comment was made that only a small percentage of people would attempt to disrupt functioning anarchism. But any examination of history indicates that only small groups of people are the driving forces for all progress, discovery, innovation, crime, frightful brutality, and a good deal of all social and anti-social activity. And it only takes a small group to screw up the works totally.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jan 2010, 12:04 am

Sand wrote:
What kind of proof are you looking for? The comment was made that only a small percentage of people would attempt to disrupt functioning anarchism. But any examination of history indicates that only small groups of people are the driving forces for all progress, discovery, innovation, crime, frightful brutality, and a good deal of all social and anti-social activity. And it only takes a small group to screw up the works totally.

Well, the issue is that you made a very strong statement about such a small thing. I mean, couldn't I with equal validity say that wikipedia is evidence that anarchism will work? I am not saying that wikipedia really does mean that anarchism will work, but I find these sorts of statements quite questionable.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

30 Jan 2010, 12:06 am

Sand wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.

Prove it. (not that anarchy won't work, or that spam and viruses exist, only that the existence of spam and viruses prevents all societal designs that could be labeled "anarchy" from meaningfully existing)


What kind of proof are you looking for? The comment was made that only a small percentage of people would attempt to disrupt functioning anarchism. But any examination of history indicates that only small groups of people are the driving forces for all progress, discovery, innovation, crime, frightful brutality, and a good deal of all social and anti-social activity. And it only takes a small group to screw up the works totally.


People try to fit in. They don't like change. It's only the small percent who can separate from the popular mindset. If the popular mindset could handle anarchy the rules would be reversed, and only a few people wouldn't conform to it (for some stupid reason like it will lead to some other undesirable end.) Humans aren't evil in nature; they are followers in nature. If everyone else is doing it then so will they. A million people disagreeing wouldn't do much because everyone else would think they were crazy for opposing the "obviously correct and proven system." The only problem I see is preventing these people from becoming terrorists. Again, some parts of the government are essential and don't conflict with the concept of anarchy, such as police and courts. This may seem a little contradictory, but it's really not.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Jan 2010, 12:13 am

fidelis wrote:
Sand wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
All one has to do is to look at the development of the internet to see how anarchy might work. If anarchy were possible as a working system there would be no spam or viruses.

Prove it. (not that anarchy won't work, or that spam and viruses exist, only that the existence of spam and viruses prevents all societal designs that could be labeled "anarchy" from meaningfully existing)


What kind of proof are you looking for? The comment was made that only a small percentage of people would attempt to disrupt functioning anarchism. But any examination of history indicates that only small groups of people are the driving forces for all progress, discovery, innovation, crime, frightful brutality, and a good deal of all social and anti-social activity. And it only takes a small group to screw up the works totally.


People try to fit in. They don't like change. It's only the small percent who can separate from the popular mindset. If the popular mindset could handle anarchy the rules would be reversed, and only a few people wouldn't conform to it (for some stupid reason like it will lead to some other undesirable end.) Humans aren't evil in nature; they are followers in nature. If everyone else is doing it then so will they. A million people disagreeing wouldn't do much because everyone else would think they were crazy for opposing the "obviously correct and proven system." The only problem I see is preventing these people from becoming terrorists. Again, some parts of the government are essential and don't conflict with the concept of anarchy, such as police and courts. This may seem a little contradictory, but it's really not.


That many people are followers does not indicate whom or what they will follow. A group of determined disruptors can get followers and there are many examples of this. Anarchy is a system very vulnerable to disruptive forces and most likely to be easily disruptive.

The example that Wikipedia works should be examined. Even now there are supervisory forces gathering to discredit it's total freedom and no doubt they will gain strength.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jan 2010, 12:23 am

Sand wrote:
The example that Wikipedia works should be examined. Even now there are supervisory forces gathering to discredit it's total freedom and no doubt they will gain strength.

Well, ok, but the matter of supervisory forces doesn't necessarily prove anything unless you are going to argue that they have set up an organized coalition. Additionally, the example is just to show how your reasoning method seemed absurd on some level. A criticism of a possible system is going to be from an analysis of that system, not from a throwaway comment. Throwaway comments, while possibly enlightening, usually don't say very much at all.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

30 Jan 2010, 12:35 am

Anarchy is like capitalism. You can knock it down but it just won't die. It will get right back up and repair itself. Your right that it is open to disruptive forces, but most people are good-natured, It just isn't socially acceptable for them to be. If there is no pressure to be destructive than nobody would be destructive.
Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective. What benefit would be received from destroying those around you? How would this make you more likely to survive in the long run? Does this generalize to all humans?
How about we look at it from a behavioralist perspective. What consequences in an anarchic society reinforce destructive behavior? What destructive behaviors would a vast amount of children be exposed to in order to repeat it.
These are two tried and tested theories, that may not cover everything, cover a lot of our behaviors. I don't believe that destructive tendencies will last long after an anarchy has been established. You are right for the transition, but after that all will be fine, except for a few oddball cases.
I would even go as far as to say destructive behavior is unique to higherarchies. Although I have doubts about it, I don't see much reason for destruction outside of such establishments.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

30 Jan 2010, 12:45 am

fidelis wrote:
Anarchy is like capitalism. You can knock it down but it just won't die. It will get right back up and repair itself. Your right that it is open to disruptive forces, but most people are good-natured, It just isn't socially acceptable for them to be. If there is no pressure to be destructive than nobody would be destructive.
Let's look at this from an evolutionary perspective. What benefit would be received from destroying those around you? How would this make you more likely to survive in the long run? Does this generalize to all humans?
How about we look at it from a behavioralist perspective. What consequences in an anarchic society reinforce destructive behavior? What destructive behaviors would a vast amount of children be exposed to in order to repeat it.
These are two tried and tested theories, that may not cover everything, cover a lot of our behaviors. I don't believe that destructive tendencies will last long after an anarchy has been established. You are right for the transition, but after that all will be fine, except for a few oddball cases.
I would even go as far as to say destructive behavior is unique to higherarchies. Although I have doubts about it, I don't see much reason for destruction outside of such establishments.


As I pointed out, who benefits from vandalism, from industrial pollution, from internet viruses and spam, from all sorts of scams? These cannot be let to run totally free. Society cannot just forget about it.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

30 Jan 2010, 12:53 am

In an anarchy there would no longer be capitalism. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they don't go hand and hand together either. Without money, these problems would be a thing of the past. We would all work to fix the pasts mistakes but apart from that we would pretty much ignore the old systems. Money is too efficient a way to gain power, and therefor doesn't work well with anarchy. Hey wait! No money=no unnecessary industrialization, no scams. Human nature as we understand it gone (see my last post)=very little vandalism (it would make front page news), no viruses. Although I thought that's what linux was for. Oh well, computers aren't my area.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.