Original Post
Anarchism
THIS WAS NOT PROOF-READ
Just a little thing against one anarchist argument.
Note: This isn't meant to be a long post, so don't expect much.
"That Mankind is Born Free
Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies." http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...or-and-against
I'd like to show how it conveniently presents every government as an oppressing, freedom-taking, dictatorship. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government absolutely needs to change, but some sort of organization is necessary for a flawless system. Anarchists who see this will probably tell you that there would be some sort of organization, such as a group that decides things (Sound familiar?). What I'm trying to say, such utopias that anarchists describe always end up looking like a standard town.
Put what you think.
Just a little thing against one anarchist argument.
Note: This isn't meant to be a long post, so don't expect much.
"That Mankind is Born Free
Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies." http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...or-and-against
I'd like to show how it conveniently presents every government as an oppressing, freedom-taking, dictatorship. Don't get me wrong, the U.S. government absolutely needs to change, but some sort of organization is necessary for a flawless system. Anarchists who see this will probably tell you that there would be some sort of organization, such as a group that decides things (Sound familiar?). What I'm trying to say, such utopias that anarchists describe always end up looking like a standard town.
Put what you think.
I know very little about anarchism so I would love it if someone could explain this for me. How does a society sustainably avoid oppression by the natural world if there is no organisation in place to protect people from the inconsistencies of our environment? I don't necessarily mean a government when I say organisation to protect people and organisation in this case doesn't imply a single group under some sort of symbol or brand, I just mean a system to maintain society through harsh times.
I hope that isn't a stupid question and that I haven't misunderstood anarchism.
I hope that isn't a stupid question and that I haven't misunderstood anarchism.
Good morning sweet princess
There are various forms of anarchy that various sorts of philosophers describe.
There is Karl Marx's anarchy. He basically says that in communism the state will gradually be replaced by self-governing entities until the whole society lives in a peaceful form of anarchy.
Individual anarchists say that everyone should govern himself and all external force is tyranny.
There are the free market anarchists who basically say that the freer the market the freer the people. Everything will regulate itself through supply and demand etc. They usually also say that social states are a scam and that the government has no business taking away money.
Then there are those who just hate the state and do not respect the law and just want to live outside of society.
One of the most famous anarchists at the moment is probably Stephan Molyneux on Youtube. He makes some pretty interesting videos and he is worth watching. Even when I don't agree with most of his content I like to consider what he says because he brings up very interesting points and perspectives.
Their common critiques are that
• All states as they are are overly organized, leading to clutter and lack of transparency.
• Social states are a scam, they take the money away from those who earned it and barely give it to those who need it.
• Representative democracy is a fraud and is really just a machinery of recycled opinions and indecisiveness.
• Government intervention in anything leads to more suffering.
• People by nature form small groups that protect each other. They have been doing that for millions of years and there is no reason to assume that it wouldn't work anymore.
• Giving people power over other people just creates monopolies of force and all people who are not members of the governing groups will automatically be oppressed due to the previous point of human nature.
There is Karl Marx's anarchy. He basically says that in communism the state will gradually be replaced by self-governing entities until the whole society lives in a peaceful form of anarchy.
Individual anarchists say that everyone should govern himself and all external force is tyranny.
There are the free market anarchists who basically say that the freer the market the freer the people. Everything will regulate itself through supply and demand etc. They usually also say that social states are a scam and that the government has no business taking away money.
Then there are those who just hate the state and do not respect the law and just want to live outside of society.
One of the most famous anarchists at the moment is probably Stephan Molyneux on Youtube. He makes some pretty interesting videos and he is worth watching. Even when I don't agree with most of his content I like to consider what he says because he brings up very interesting points and perspectives.
Their common critiques are that
• All states as they are are overly organized, leading to clutter and lack of transparency.
• Social states are a scam, they take the money away from those who earned it and barely give it to those who need it.
• Representative democracy is a fraud and is really just a machinery of recycled opinions and indecisiveness.
• Government intervention in anything leads to more suffering.
• People by nature form small groups that protect each other. They have been doing that for millions of years and there is no reason to assume that it wouldn't work anymore.
• Giving people power over other people just creates monopolies of force and all people who are not members of the governing groups will automatically be oppressed due to the previous point of human nature.
Last edited by Redundant; Dec 23, 2014 at 10:08 PM.
The way I see it, is that anarchy is kind of not possible. They basically want nobody to be telling them what to do and it just be people doing whatever they please. It kind of already is this way if you think about it. Yes, you are ABLE to go out and kill everyone you see, but then everyone else is also ABLE to organize a force of people(police) to stop the people like you that go out and kill everyone you see. Even if all government collapsed today, it would still eventually end up the same as it was before. People want a solid, stable, way of life. This is only possible through a form of society/people telling people what they can and cannot do.
Originally Posted by etoria
utopias that anarchists describe always end up looking like a standard town.
You are outstandingly wrong.
Like wow.
Originally Posted by etoria
it conveniently presents every government as an oppressing, freedom-taking, dictatorship.
Being subject to an authority that I do not agree with deprives me of freedom.
So every government is "freedom-taking", and therefore oppressing.
But not a dictatorship, if you think it presents every government as a dictatorship you are mistaken.
or stupid...
Originally Posted by etoria
Anarchists who see this will probably tell you that there would be some sort of organization, such as a group that decides things (Sound familiar?).
Do you actually know any anarchists? or anything about them? because you can't group them like you're trying to do.
Anarchy isn't an organization with shared views.
Every single anarchist has different ideas.
Man this thread is stupid.
This is so fucking stupid it's killing me
