34 replies to this topic

[Starmie]

Am I right in thinking that anarchism is the rejection of a state (i.e. government)? If so, how can this, in any possible way, be at all viable? I'm looking for an argument from both sides, as I'm relatively uneducated on this particular issue.

Edited by Starmie, 15 July 2007 - 02:26 PM.

[Verrückt]

imagine warlords, emo's, and lot's of drug addicts.

[Starmie]

I'm sort of looking for something a little less vague, but I'd kind of figured that out in the first place.

[CodeCat]

Anarchy can and has worked, but it requires scaling down a lot. States at the size we see them today would be very hard, IMO, to sustain under anarchy. When humanity was sparse, say 100 thousand years ago, anarchy was more common because there simply weren't enough people around to maintain a state for. I'd say that for it to work, social control has to be strong. And for that to work, communities need to be much more tight and localised. Like the kind of things you see in small villages.

The fact is that there needs to be some authority, in some form or another. But contrary to common knowledge, that authority doesn't need to stand aside or above the people it applies to. Authority can also come from within the society itself, and in that case there doesn't need to be a single ruler or even a ruling class. The people basically rule themselves because any unruly behaviour is dealt with within the community itself. All people have equal authority and dissidence is taken care of from the remainder of the population.

[OmegaBolt]

Don't you think Britains half anarchist anyway? I mean Chavs for instance, they seem separate themselves from the rest of society and create their own little society revolving around being 'mushes' to each other and brutally killing those who 'diss' them.

[CodeCat]

There's still a law and enforcement of it, even if they seem to be able to evade it. Anarchy has no 'higher level' at all; the society itself is the only real law that exists.

[Starmie]

I'd be the first to admit that Britain is fucked up - thank you Tony Blair and the New Labour imbeciles - but you have a point. Personally, i just don't think it would work at all in our larger civilised states, never mind be difficult. Which begs the question - if anarchism is a dead policy, then why is it widely supported? And are there any anarchists on Revora?

BTW OmegaBolt, it's not chavs who kill people, it's almost always young black or Asian men causing the knife culture. Call me racist, it's the truth.

[Starmie]

I'm actually not sure whether that's sarcasm or not, although your avatar suggests you're entirely serious. Anyways - you can't always identify a Muslim extremist. Letting the army loose would be wrong. Apart from the extremists. I doubt OmegaBolt wanted to kill the chavs, and I don't want to go around bumping off young blacks and Asians left, right and centre.

Edited by Starmie, 20 July 2007 - 04:59 PM.

[chemical ali]

Anarco capitalism and Libertarianism are the supreme forms of anarchism.

[Starmie]

Bring back hangings and add being a chav to the list of hangable offences.

Hmmm - guess what that's called? Nazism. Sure chavs have never been a positive addition to society, but the same could be said for many people, including petty criminals and people who exceed the speed limit on the roads. Also, you can't always know who's a chav - just because they have a Burberry cap doesn't always make someone a chav. Going to execute everyone who steps a millimetre out of line? Good luck with that - I'll call the men in white coats.

What's the difference between all these forms of anarchism? I've heard of "libertarianism" but I didn't know it had anything to do with anarchism.

Edited by Starmie, 21 July 2007 - 03:05 PM.

[Drewry]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.

That's a quote from Wikipedia, I think they pretty accurately describe the philosophy. In the purest sense of the philosophy, it is very much like Anarchy where the only law that exists is Liberty - binding together the society.

[GodSun666]

Well, i live in my own world. And know one cares and i know some "chav's" from my own country.... they are nice if you dont do anything wrong.. and if you do.. theyll usualy beat you up... if you try that to me... ill fight till the last breath so iam prepared to die:P:P. Anyways, what i understand with "anarchism" is freedom No laws.. and you can do anything what you want. Alot of people want it and lots wont! Since it will cause alot of havoc... anyways.. just make youre own little world.. and enjoy

[CodeCat]

AFAIK, anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism basically mean that huge corporations own the population.

[duke_Qa]

social liberalism and economic liberalism are two completely different animals.

to have freedom for the people, you need control over the corporations. we might have too many laws for humans these days and too few for corporations. a corporation version of the UN would have been nice.

[OmegaBolt]

I doubt OmegaBolt wanted to kill the chavs, and I don't want to go around bumping off young blacks and Asians left, right and centre.

Of course I do! What damn Englishman wouldn't? They are destroying our very countries foundations.

[Ash]

Lemme just say the majority of the first few responses (Exception being CC and Duke) you got to your question fall into one of two categories. Ones who are completely uneducated in the concept of anarchism, and those who just seemed to feel like getting a dig in at other races/religions. While I am generally in favour of being more stringent on immigration and the British govt giving priority to British citizens (as, like, yknow, every other country on Earth does), I am not in favour of just randomly shooting them. Deportation's fine.


As for anarchism, the removal of a general group or groups of administrative authority could, in theory, be achieved over time. However you'll get the likes of Hostile coming along and saying that the police would somehow cease to function, and so would laws. That could hardly be the case as nobody said anything about the abolition of all law (although hardline anarchists would look to that as the ultimate goal - yes, that would lead to 'anarchy', but probably its more commonly accepted alternative definition of absolute chaos and bedlam IMO).

Anarchism can best be defined then as the ultimate state of decentralisation with no authority figures, roles or positions.

While I am a left-winger I consider this to be too extreme - while I don't believe there need be a governing body save for nationwide referendum (true democracy) I do believe that some maintenance of law, order and border defence would need to be retained.

The only way this dissolution of a governing body could be achieved is if control over that governing body were to be passed to individuals who were willing to shun the power being in control of that body. That, and the people's mindset altered from that of the capitalist 'out-for-number-one' attitude to one of 'work-for-the-good-of-all-to-benefit-yourself'. And also, some means to rein in the police and some law executive committee. However that would constitute, in the loosest sense, a form of government, although the law would be confined solely to what is and is not a criminal offence, and the punishments that would entail from said offence.

A little paradoxical, but with someone to work out the kinks it is theoretically possible. It would require generations of work, dedication and people humble enough to disperse their power.

Oh, and to not get usurped by those who are not of such humility.

[chemical ali]

AFAIK, anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism basically mean that huge corporations own the population.

Er no.

[Ash]

While I must say I don't think you're qualified to say whether he's right or wrong (for numerous reasons I won't get into), if you think he is why don't you tell us your definition rather than being a dick?

[chemical ali]

Because his views are slanted as a Chinamans eyes.

[CodeCat]

While yours is nonexistant. Your view is made of the chain by which you blindly follow those who would pretend to be best for you.