Debate: Would BOTH "Left and Right" Think Anarchy is the Answer?

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 3:24 AM GMT
    This idea has come out of another thread OPed by MikeW, and about which he and I have had private discussions.

    Proudhon, the father of Anarchism, famously says,"Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and tyrant, and I declare him my enemy."

    So:

    RESOLVED: This House supports Proudhon's following DEFINITION of GOVERNMENT.

    Those in favor, say "AYE"; those against say "NAY", and why unto either:

    "To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

    AYE or NAY?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 3:44 AM GMT
    Anarchy sounds good in theory, but in practice it would be utter chaos. It's bad enough already when parents don't govern their kids, and just let them run wild in stores. I can't (and don't want to) imagine what an entire society would be like without any form of government.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 3:53 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidAnarchy sounds good in theory, but in practice it would be utter chaos. It's bad enough already when parents don't govern their kids, and just let them run wild in stores. I can't (and don't want to) imagine what an entire society would be like without any form of government.


    "As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy."

    I'll just keep throwing these out with each response to play devil's advocate. So, "democracy" sounds good in theory (when, say, 50% of the population controlled 50% of the wealth); is that the same "democracy" when 1.5% of the people have 88% of the wealth?

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 4:02 AM GMT
    "As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy."

    Do you see what he means? You and, say, four of your friends, think it entirely normal that your neighbor, and his four friends, ought to be "equal" to you, and your four friends.

    Yet you have no problem thinking a "president", and his four friends, say, "cabinet members", are in no WAY equal to you and your four friends. They have a lot more power. Why?

    You're ascribing to a man what you will not ascribe to society, yet society is made up of men (non-generic).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 4:15 AM GMT
    If Lord Acton is correct and "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Then the problem with government is that it is concentrated power. As the power become concentrated in the hands of the few it gets closer and closer to absolute power. And thus more and more corrupting.

    If we had anarchy, we would each retain all of our own power. Because all of the power would be spread out, it'd be less corrupting.

    So i vote for anarchy.

    Not that it matters, after the zombie apocalypse happens we will have anarchy whether we like it or not.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 4:17 AM GMT
    2bnaked said
    WrestlerBoy said"As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy."

    Do you see what he means? You and, say, four of your friends, think it entirely normal that your neighbor, and his four friends, ought to be "equal" to you, and your four friends.

    Yet you have no problem thinking a "president", and his four friends, say, "cabinet members", are in no WAY equal to you and your four friends. They have a lot more power. Why?

    You're ascribing to a man what you will not ascribe to society, yet society is made up of men (non-generic).


    it's called LOOP HOLES!!


    k
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 4:23 AM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidIf Lord Acton is correct and "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Then the problem with government is that it is concentrated power. As the power become concentrated in the hands of the few it gets closer and closer to absolute power. And thus more and more corrupting.

    If we had anarchy, we would each retain all of our own power. Because all of the power would be spread out, it'd be less corrupting.

    So i vote for anarchy.

    Not that it matters, after the zombie apocalypse happens we will have anarchy whether we like it or not.


    Every single person in the U.S. Congress, today; every single person in the British Parliament, today; in the German Bundestag, today... is descended from a large number of people who were here.... say, 25,000 years ago.

    When none of those forms of "Government" existed. I wonder...how...we...managed??
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 4:29 AM GMT
    2bnaked said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Wyndahoi saidIf Lord Acton is correct and "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Then the problem with government is that it is concentrated power. As the power become concentrated in the hands of the few it gets closer and closer to absolute power. And thus more and more corrupting.

    If we had anarchy, we would each retain all of our own power. Because all of the power would be spread out, it'd be less corrupting.

    So i vote for anarchy.

    Not that it matters, after the zombie apocalypse happens we will have anarchy whether we like it or not.


    Every single person in the U.S. Congress, today; every single person in the British Parliament, today; in the German Bundestag, today... is descended from a large number of people who were here.... say, 25,000 years ago.

    When none of those forms of "Government" existed. I wonder...how...we...managed??


    Robin Hood?


    Then he's a lot older than I thought he was.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Jul 08, 2014 11:02 PM GMT
    They`d both hate it as they`d lose that most precious item, control of the population.

    Anarchy sounds find in theory, but in practice we`d all need to be much better educated, self-reflective/aware, and morally developed to even begin to make it work.

    It maybe worked in prehistory, when human populations were so small and very thinly spread across the Earth, but I doubt it. Even Stone Age societies had social hierarchies, the rulers and ruled.

    In cities of millions today......? No, it wouldn`t work.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 08, 2014 11:05 PM GMT
    Lincsbear saidThey`d both hate it as they`d lose that most precious item, control of the population.

    Anarchy sounds find in theory, but in practice we`d all need to be much better educated, self-reflective/aware, and morally developed to even begin to make it work.

    It maybe worked in prehistory, when human populations were so small, but I doubt it. Even Stone Age societies had social hierarchies, the rulers and ruled.


    In college we used to say, "How do we ("Anarchists") even have a meeting? Because arranging the time and place would be an exercise in one man's domination over another." icon_smile.gif OK, let's just all go to the pub.

    But actually, what we have NOW is a bunch of people "thinking" they are exactly that: more educated, more morally developed, more "aware" who are "leading" us. That's precisely his point???? People tend to "overthink" anarchism more than they overthink anything else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 11:41 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said"As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy."

    Do you see what he means? You and, say, four of your friends, think it entirely normal that your neighbor, and his four friends, ought to be "equal" to you, and your four friends.

    Yet you have no problem thinking a "president", and his four friends, say, "cabinet members", are in no WAY equal to you and your four friends. They have a lot more power. Why?

    You're ascribing to a man what you will not ascribe to society, yet society is made up of men (non-generic).
    Even in an anarchistic society, one of the four friends would develop a dominate voice over the other three. It's genetically encoded into all social animals. Chickens have a "pecking order," horses have a "kicking order," and humans have leaders and followers.

    Even after a zombie apocalypse, the individual groups of people left would naturally form a hierarchy within each group.

    As for the zombies, I don't know. Maybe they're the ideal version of anarchy, since they never fight or eat each other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2014 11:47 PM GMT
    From my experience, a simultaneous tension exists between diametrically opposed human desires: The desire for self; and, The desire to belong.

    Balance is forever fleeting.


























    So let's just fuck. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 12:18 AM GMT

    Anarchy in an open carry gun society.

    icon_neutral.gif....

    ....icon_neutral.gif.......

    ......icon_neutral.gif....

    ..oh yeah. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 12:22 AM GMT
    The very rich would have private police, fire department, roads and road maintenance, water supply and sewer infrastructure, all maintained.

    Everyone else? "I got mine so fuck you." along with chaos on unmaintained roads, sewers, water disruptions, electricity disruptions et al. Your employer, however, and corporations would have undreamt of power over you. Any kind of social system net is gone, along with government. Go beg at a church.


  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 09, 2014 1:31 AM GMT
    There are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 09, 2014 1:46 AM GMT
    "There are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right."

    The Extreme Right and the Extreme Left have similar very bad ideas. They both imagine a happy outcome to the apocalypse they'd love to engineer.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 09, 2014 3:14 AM GMT
    meninlove said The very rich would have private police, fire department, roads and road maintenance, water supply and sewer infrastructure, all maintained.

    Everyone else? "I got mine so fuck you." along with chaos on unmaintained roads, sewers, water disruptions, electricity disruptions et al. Your employer, however, and corporations would have undreamt of power over you. Any kind of social system net is gone, along with government. Go beg at a church.




    You're completely confusing "Anarchism" with "Chaos." You simply aren't reading what he writes.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 09, 2014 3:16 AM GMT
    coolarmydude saidThere are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.


    Again, you're doing the same thing: Equating anarchism with chaos.

    The "chaos" you're seeing as a reaction to so-called "democracy" is an anarchist reacting against unwilled, and unpermitted, oppression.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 10, 2014 1:00 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude saidThere are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.


    Again, you're doing the same thing: Equating anarchism with chaos.

    The "chaos" you're seeing as a reaction to so-called "democracy" is an anarchist reacting against unwilled, and unpermitted, oppression.


    Uh, no! In both cases I spoke to the concentration of power. In either example that I provided, what does it have to do with chaos?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 10, 2014 1:48 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude saidThere are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.


    Again, you're doing the same thing: Equating anarchism with chaos.

    The "chaos" you're seeing as a reaction to so-called "democracy" is an anarchist reacting against unwilled, and unpermitted, oppression.


    Uh, no! In both cases I spoke to the concentration of power. In either example that I provided, what does it have to do with chaos?


    And by buzz wording "WTO anarchists" you meant to suggest the folks in Seattle and Genoa, for example, sitting down and negotiating, or the ones rioting and breaking windows? icon_smile.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 10, 2014 2:43 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude said
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude saidThere are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.


    Again, you're doing the same thing: Equating anarchism with chaos.

    The "chaos" you're seeing as a reaction to so-called "democracy" is an anarchist reacting against unwilled, and unpermitted, oppression.


    Uh, no! In both cases I spoke to the concentration of power. In either example that I provided, what does it have to do with chaos?


    And by buzz wording "WTO anarchists" you meant to suggest the folks in Seattle and Genoa, for example, sitting down and negotiating, or the ones rioting and breaking windows? icon_smile.gif


    Were those the only WTO protests? No. Nevertheless, the aim is to protest the global consolidation of power. That's what I originally said.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 10, 2014 2:45 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude said
    WrestlerBoy said
    coolarmydude saidThere are anarchists on the far extremes of the Left and Right. On the left are radical anarchists, such as the WTO anarchists, who are primarily opposed to a global concentration of power. On the right are "sovereign citizen" anarchists who don't want to be held accountable to authority in view of what they consider a loss of all individual power.


    Again, you're doing the same thing: Equating anarchism with chaos.

    The "chaos" you're seeing as a reaction to so-called "democracy" is an anarchist reacting against unwilled, and unpermitted, oppression.


    Uh, no! In both cases I spoke to the concentration of power. In either example that I provided, what does it have to do with chaos?


    And by buzz wording "WTO anarchists" you meant to suggest the folks in Seattle and Genoa, for example, sitting down and negotiating, or the ones rioting and breaking windows? icon_smile.gif


    Were those the only WTO protests? No. Nevertheless, the aim is to protest the global consolidation of power. That's what I originally said.


    What's your point, in reference to my original question?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 10, 2014 8:53 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    What's your point, in reference to my original question?


    facepalm-pics-11.jpg

    You're embarrassing yourself.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 10, 2014 8:54 PM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    WrestlerBoy said
    What's your point, in reference to my original question?


    facepalm-pics-11.jpg

    You're embarrassing yourself.


    I'm embarrassing myself because you can't read? And on some posts you sounded marginally cool.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 10, 2014 8:56 PM GMT
    I already made my point. You made my comment to be something that I didn't say or imply.