Anarcho Apies?

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,243

31 Jul 2013, 10:18 am

I sympathize with anarchism but I can't be an anarchist. I'm relying on ODSP right now and that's a government program. I'm trying to come off of it as soon as possible and detach myself from the system as much as possible but I will still have benefitted from it and therefore I'd be a hypocritical anarchist.

Aspendos
Deinonychus

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 394
Location: Switzerland

31 Jul 2013, 6:49 pm

I don't want to get into an argument about the merits or demerits of anarchism (particularly as the OP seems to have lost interest), but here are two random articles I read yesterday/today that certainly show the deep flaws of any pro-government argument:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... CMP=twt_gu

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/18688

And, no, this isn't merely a British problem.

Have a death wish? You don't need to be an anarchist, it's enough to live in the US. The law protects the rich, government leaves the poor to struggle for themselves, some get involved in so-called crime, someone may get hurt, someone's left dead, if you're poor and have to rely on a public defender you're more than likely to end up on death row. Laws don't protect people, laws protect property and the status quo. Most people with AS have no reason whatsoever to want to uphold the status quo.

The status quo, the system, is what excludes us from mainstream society. This is not the natural state of things. One reason why AS seems to be so much more prevalent today is because the kind of jobs that people with AS used to do don't exist anymore. The system, the status quo, have created the situation in which people with AS have to depend on welfare to survive. No need to be thankful. In an anarchist society the sort of jobs that people with AS can do are likely to exist once more.

Take as much money out of the system as you can (even if it's welfare checks), and put in as little as possible (by way of taxes, etc.), seems to be the only way of resistance that the law will permit, but it's still valid resistance against the system. It's all about your mindset.

The system leaves you poor - law gives you no recourse. Why do people keep buying this BS?

And sorry, but tenured professors have a vested interest in keeping up the status quo.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2013, 7:33 pm

Aspendos wrote:

You have poor judgement. Compare the U.S. to Somalia or Haitii. One is much better off in the U.S.

Also look at the vote by feet poll. The U.S. is groaning under the weight of illegal immigration. Apparently a lot of people disagree with your judgement.

ruveyn

Flipinator
Butterfly

Joined: 27 May 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Location: Queensland, Australia

31 Jul 2013, 10:33 pm

nominalist wrote:

Flipinator wrote:

In my opinion you have it back to front. The government should not have the authority to compel, the people should compel the government. The government should only have the power that the people allow. In modern, so called, democracy the only power that the government allows the people is the power to elect they will abdicate their power to that they can rule over them.

You just provided the Platonic definition of democracy as anarchy (mob rule). Can you provide an example of a modern society which has successfully functioned without some degree of vertical domination? I am not aware of any.

Flipinator wrote:

There are plenty of examples of despotic regimes that have seized power and embarked on campaigns of genocide that have perpetrated much greater evil and suffering than any rebellion.

And there are plenty of examples of peaceful societies which have functioned under vertical power structures. I am not aware of any peaceful modern anarchist societies.

Thank you for missing my point.

You made the point that without Big Brother people will run riot. I simply countered that point by pointing out that people will rebel against vertical authority as well.

Can you provide an example were vertical domination has not been enforced by those that have control or have taken control of all resources? There is no such thing as democracy.

Since time immemorial, those with the access to the greatest resources have used those resources to dominate those that have less in order to gain control of even more resources. Does this make it right. Should we just maintain the status quo out of timidity. You seem to advocate for the continued exploitation of the majority by the minority based authority derived from wealth.

I will reiterate, anarchy does not mean no government, it does not mean that there is no control or law and order, it means that we dismantle unjust domination by the minority over the majority. You can seem to grasp a concept of anarchy beyond pissed teenager spray painting anarchy symbols and F**k the Police everywhere.

Flipinator
Butterfly

Joined: 27 May 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Location: Queensland, Australia

31 Jul 2013, 10:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Aspendos wrote:

The question is why are Somalia and Haiti in the state they are in? Because they are dominated by greed people who control all the resources and deny them to the majority in order that they do not have the means to resist.

Flipinator
Butterfly

Joined: 27 May 2013
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Location: Queensland, Australia

31 Jul 2013, 10:38 pm

seaturtleisland wrote:

In an anarchy you could still have access to those types of resources. Anarchy is not about the breakdown of society, it is about a different type of society.

N0tYetDeadFred
Sea Gull

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 243
Location: Fortress of Solitude

01 Aug 2013, 9:42 am

I admire Dorothy Day, who was a Christian Anarchist, and I think that Austrian Economics (the basis for anarcho-capitalism) is sound, but I think that a permanent transformation into anarchist society isn't possible. It has the same philosophical problem as communism: human nature. Communism doesn't work if one greedy person exists, and anarchism fails if one person has a lust for power.

Nevertheless, if you don't have an expectation that the rest of the world will follow suit, there are definitely ways of being an anarchist that can lead to a happier, more fulfilling life.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

01 Aug 2013, 11:28 am

Flipinator wrote:

Sometimes, not usually. Most modern nation states do not have constant insurrections, coups d'état or civil wars.

Again, my question remains. Can you provide a single example of modern, peaceful anarchist society?

Flipinator wrote:

Can you provide an example were vertical domination has not been enforced by those that have control or have taken control of all resources? There is no such thing as democracy.

There are always people who abuse their power. In societies without legitimate (legal) power structures, the problems are usually much worse (fiefdoms, criminal gangs, etc.).

Flipinator wrote:

Since time immemorial, those with the access to the greatest resources have used those resources to dominate those that have less in order to gain control of even more resources. Does this make it right. Should we just maintain the status quo out of timidity. You seem to advocate for the continued exploitation of the majority by the minority based authority derived from wealth.

Can you provide a workable alternative to statism? Personally, I am a theocratic socialist (a mixture of theocracy, state socialism, and democratic socialism).

Flipinator wrote:

I will reiterate, anarchy does not mean no government, it does not mean that there is no control or law and order, it means that we dismantle unjust domination by the minority over the majority. You can seem to grasp a concept of anarchy beyond pissed teenager spray painting anarchy symbols and F**k the Police everywhere.

With anarchy, there is no vertical domination. Any "government" is, by definition, voluntary and without compulsion.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

01 Aug 2013, 1:24 pm

N0tYetDeadFred wrote:

anarcho-capitalism

Neo-feudalism isn't anarchism.

N0tYetDeadFred wrote:

Communism doesn't work if one greedy person exists, and anarchism fails if one person has a lust for power.

Anarchism happens when the majority reject the attempts of a power hungry minority to rule. Anarchism is a practical solution to today's problems.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CarUYvGGHyo[/youtube]

Last edited by RushKing on 01 Aug 2013, 3:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

yelekam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 591

01 Aug 2013, 1:34 pm

In my view anarchism is just a decentralized tyranny, where anyone can be a tyrant and is free to terrorize others.

N0tYetDeadFred
Sea Gull

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 243
Location: Fortress of Solitude

01 Aug 2013, 2:29 pm

RushKing wrote:

N0tYetDeadFred wrote:

anarcho-capitalism

Neo-fudualism isn't anarchism.

I thought that might be a problem.

I actually wrote (or intended to write) that I reject anarcho-capitalism, but some of the economists at the heart of that movement are really good economists.

Aspendos
Deinonychus

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 394
Location: Switzerland

01 Aug 2013, 6:50 pm

Vote by feet poll = lemmings will be lemmings

No one in their right mind would want to live in this country:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/a ... ure-cooker

neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

01 Aug 2013, 7:06 pm

Anarchism might work for lemmings, just not for humans.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

01 Aug 2013, 8:01 pm

Look, I have to admit that the point that no working anarchist society exists is a valid one. Without a working example, we don't know whether this radical change will make people better or not.

Also, to Aspendos:

Quote:

Have a death wish? You don't need to be an anarchist, it's enough to live in the US. The law protects the rich, government leaves the poor to struggle for themselves, some get involved in so-called crime, someone may get hurt, someone's left dead, if you're poor and have to rely on a public defender you're more than likely to end up on death row. Laws don't protect people, laws protect property and the status quo. Most people with AS have no reason whatsoever to want to uphold the status quo.

The status quo, the system, is what excludes us from mainstream society. This is not the natural state of things. One reason why AS seems to be so much more prevalent today is because the kind of jobs that people with AS used to do don't exist anymore. The system, the status quo, have created the situation in which people with AS have to depend on welfare to survive. No need to be thankful. In an anarchist society the sort of jobs that people with AS can do are likely to exist once more.

Take as much money out of the system as you can (even if it's welfare checks), and put in as little as possible (by way of taxes, etc.), seems to be the only way of resistance that the law will permit, but it's still valid resistance against the system. It's all about your mindset.

The system leaves you poor - law gives you no recourse. Why do people keep buying this BS?

All of this doesn't seem to check out:
1) If laws don't protect people then we still have to explain how the US seems to provide much higher welfare than the third world, including lower crime rates.
2) Saying that the status quo excludes people with AS seems like just an assertion. What jobs were lost that hurt us? Why will anarchism help us?
3) As for "Why do people keep buying this BS?". Honestly, systems like the US, the UK, and much of Europe/parts of Asia are the best humanity has ever done in history for promoting human welfare. That's not to say there aren't failures, but the proper comparison isn't towards an anarchist ideal, or even the ideal version of our current system, but rather towards all other existing systems or past systems. Modern society isn't a failure, it's an accomplishment.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

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

01 Aug 2013, 8:03 pm

Aspendos wrote:

No one in their right mind would want to live in this country:

Your statement is absurd. Where would sane people prefer to live? Russia? Nigeria? Somalia? North Korea? China? The list is somewhat facetious, but the question is real.

Can you provide an analysis rather than just giving a set of assertions?

TheHaywire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 531

03 Aug 2013, 2:40 pm

For the majority of my life.

Was never into anarcho-communism or anarcho-collectivism, but I was pretty hardcore about the individualist stuff...

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Anarcho Apies? Post Reply New Topic

Anarcho Apies?