Anarchy is the abolition of the state, and having no state gives rise to the problems I mentioned but you fail to address.
I'm not going to continue this discussion. You are making me run in circles, and saying stuff that is just plain contradictory/retarded (it's more like not saying anything), asking questions then discrediting/ignoring my answers. I hope someone with the patience required will take my place.
I'm not going to continue this discussion. You are making me run in circles, and saying stuff that is just plain contradictory/
Last edited by ynvaser; Jan 5, 2015 at 02:23 PM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Ok but as I said, since that's not my position doesn't that mean you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument? That kind of fallacy is known as a 'strawman'.
Well..
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I don't see any particular downside to anarchism.
No matter which way you want to twist that, you're clearly arguing that you give anarchism the thumbs up because you think there's no downsides. Which is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I appreciate that your argument is "surely there must be something bad about anarchism", but if you aren't prepared to make an actual argument then there's not much point posting is there?
Why are you continuing to argue like you don't understand that there's downsides, when your defence to my other point was that I was misrepresenting you and that you knew there were downsides?
I'll indulge you, though. Have you ever wondered why such a thing as 'hierarchy' exists? It's because, the ancients, to do complicated things, needed to command vast pools of labor - somebody was needed to organise and direct such things. Right now, we live in an incredibly complex and cooperative society. If you bothered researching (hell, wiki'd), you'd know one of the big arguments against anarchism is that our society is too reliant on so many people working together, guided by directors.
Originally Posted by Ele
Well..
No matter which way you want to twist that, you're clearly arguing that you give anarchism the thumbs up because you think there's no downsides. Which is ridiculous.
Why are you continuing to argue like you don't understand that there's downsides, when your defence to my other point was that I was misrepresenting you and that you knew there were downsides?
But that's not what I said.
Sorry but if we keep getting sidetracked by you trying to strawman then this conversation is going to take a long time. I didn't say there's no downside to anarchism so maybe you should stop pretending I did, ok?
Originally Posted by Ele
I'll indulge you, though. Have you ever wondered why such a thing as 'hierarchy' exists? It's because, the ancients, to do complicated things, needed to command vast pools of labor - somebody was needed to organise and direct such things. Right now, we live in an incredibly complex and cooperative society. If you bothered researching (hell, wiki'd), you'd know one of the big arguments against anarchism is that our society is too reliant on so many people working together, guided by directors.
Hierarchies are not incompatible with anarchism, again you are making an assumption. Read your own link.
Again, are you going to make an actual argument any time soon? Come on, post something you think is negative about anarchism (not just; "read this link which has it's own counter argument listed").
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Let me put this together. In your definition, people living in anarchy have laws, police, schools, universities and a defined hierarchy which they follow, but there's no state which could maintain those? Sorry, what? if you answer with another question, i'm stranglin' me a puppy
Last edited by ynvaser; Jan 5, 2015 at 05:26 PM.
