Anarchism
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
06 Apr 2010, 1:16 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BTW, my favorite subject isn't economics, or at least, not so much. In highschool my favorite subjects were Euclidean geometry and chemistry, but in college I suppose the only thing closest to being a science course taught at Rasmussen are the micro and macro economics courses. They had an astronomy course too, a class which I took in my first quarter, which I could have learned more from reading the Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual than from the coffee table book, The Universe & Beyond. I really wish I were able to have afforded Bethel University back in 2004... it stinks to be accepted and have everything else in order except for the lousy financial aid. I would have had my Bachelor's in Chemistry as of 2008 if it weren't for the rules of the FAFSA in regard to Expected Family Contribution... but things are as they are and now I'm obtaining a Bachelor's in Accounting solely for the purpose of improving the odds of being hired and paid well, theoretically at least. Hopefully I'll be able to get the job I need, pay off the loans for the vocational BS degree, and someday get a degree in chemistry, or at the least get a vocational degree in a more cool and science related field, such as electronics which has been a hobby for me every so often when I have a chance to build small circuits or to dissect broken junk.
I know, you've explicitly stated that you dislike economics in the past.
Ah, sorry I didn't understand that you were joking.
07 Apr 2010, 2:26 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Government is (or ought to be) more about what is forbidden than what is mandatory. The purpose of government is to deter acts of aggression against persons or property and failing that, to punish transgressors.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
I share that position as well, favoring central governments over anarchism, given the nature of people, if government is about controlling people, which I believe is part of the anarchist position, I would say: people need to be controlled.
Anarchism can be said to be a good ideal but that has also been said about communism, so I guess I'm nowhere here other than a preference to central governments. And maybe this can be another question to ask, is anarchism an utopic ideal, similarly to utopian socialism? given that I share ruvein's position about people's behaviour, I would have to be inclined to think of it as utopic.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
fidelis
Veteran
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.
07 Apr 2010, 2:47 pm
greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Government is (or ought to be) more about what is forbidden than what is mandatory. The purpose of government is to deter acts of aggression against persons or property and failing that, to punish transgressors.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
I share that position as well, favoring central governments over anarchism, given the nature of people, if government is about controlling people, which I believe is part of the anarchist position, I would say: people need to be controlled.
Anarchism can be said to be a good ideal but that has also been said about communism, so I guess I'm nowhere here other than a preference to central governments. And maybe this can be another question to ask, is anarchism an utopic ideal, similarly to utopian socialism? given that I share ruvein's position about people's behaviour, I would have to be inclined to think of it as utopic.
Serious anarchists understand that people are monsters. It's kinda hard to miss it. We just don't think we need laws and government to tell us what to do. Police and hospitals and all those things are necessary. The only "law" is that no one can force another person to do something they don't want, unless they brake this "law." There are a thousand ways to say it, but that's it. It's not a complete free for all.
Utopia? Wishful thinking. Anarchy is preferred to small government which is preferred to large government. It's not perfect.
_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.
07 Apr 2010, 3:36 pm
greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Government is (or ought to be) more about what is forbidden than what is mandatory. The purpose of government is to deter acts of aggression against persons or property and failing that, to punish transgressors.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
Anarchism is a very ideal position. It only works with people who have self control and can be trusted to behave themselves. Unfortunately there are enough people who lack this self control, so government is necessary. It is a necessary evil, because of moral failure is some people. Angels do not need government. Saints do not need government. Ordinary humans do. Government is a necessary evil because some humans are defective.
I share that position as well, favoring central governments over anarchism, given the nature of people, if government is about controlling people, which I believe is part of the anarchist position, I would say: people need to be controlled.
Anarchism can be said to be a good ideal but that has also been said about communism, so I guess I'm nowhere here other than a preference to central governments. And maybe this can be another question to ask, is anarchism an utopic ideal, similarly to utopian socialism? given that I share ruvein's position about people's behaviour, I would have to be inclined to think of it as utopic.
Well, to address the criticism I am going to say a few things:
1) The analytical anarchists aren't opposed to all forms and varieties of control, but rather they think that decentralizing control methods would allow for peaceful competition that reduces larger evils.
2) Analytical anarchism does not hold to what ruveyn calls "self-control" and "trust" as central as other similar things, but rather analytical anarchism's founders have tended to be economists assuming that people are relatively self-interested. There are legal scholars and others as well by this point, but the foundational texts were economics.
3) Ruveyn's point about property also does not seem incredibly valid in some ways because all that is needed is a stable set of norms and then some enforcement, but neither require government. Private enforcement of property rights happens all of the time. The real question is whether it can happen in an institutional structure somewhat different than that of a central government.
4) I would rebut the claim of "utopianism" based upon a few facts:
a) Analytical anarchism is focused on exploring the potential consequences from anarchism from the standpoint of the social sciences and supports anarchism in part based upon the results. In fact, the movement is more driven by scholarship and academic dialog than a cult-ish leader.
b) Analytical anarchism do not say that anarchy is perfect, ideal or anything like that. Instead, their claim is that it is likely better by a significant margin and this is based upon the idea that the many more structures will be curtailed from controlling individual behavior unnecessarily and have competition.
c) Analytic anarchists actually do not want to overthrow the norm structure as completely as socialists would. The reason being that their goal is not to impose a new order but rather create more freedom for new orders. This means that instead of an imposed utopia, the idea is that the playing field will be opened up so that way finding better pathways to make things better exist.
d) It is better thought out than the Venus Project.
08 Apr 2010, 4:55 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
BTW, my favorite subject isn't economics, or at least, not so much. In highschool my favorite subjects were Euclidean geometry and chemistry, but in college I suppose the only thing closest to being a science course taught at Rasmussen are the micro and macro economics courses. They had an astronomy course too, a class which I took in my first quarter, which I could have learned more from reading the Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual than from the coffee table book, The Universe & Beyond. I really wish I were able to have afforded Bethel University back in 2004... it stinks to be accepted and have everything else in order except for the lousy financial aid. I would have had my Bachelor's in Chemistry as of 2008 if it weren't for the rules of the FAFSA in regard to Expected Family Contribution... but things are as they are and now I'm obtaining a Bachelor's in Accounting solely for the purpose of improving the odds of being hired and paid well, theoretically at least. Hopefully I'll be able to get the job I need, pay off the loans for the vocational BS degree, and someday get a degree in chemistry, or at the least get a vocational degree in a more cool and science related field, such as electronics which has been a hobby for me every so often when I have a chance to build small circuits or to dissect broken junk.
I know, you've explicitly stated that you dislike economics in the past.
Ah, sorry I didn't understand that you were joking.
It's to be expected in a forum for people with Autism.
