Poll: Anarchism

[Malkavian]

90% of those people advocating anarchism wouldn't last 10 minutes in an anarchist society.

Read John Locke, Montesquieu, Machiavelli, Bodin. They can explain how having no gov't is a bad, bad idea.

A man after my own heart. Those are some great philosophers you mentioned there.

But reading philosophers with social theories doesn't prove another social theory wrong, unless you agree with them. For every philosopher presenting his ideas, another disputes them. It's hardly proof.

 

[Trace2010]

So the majority belief here is that anarchy wouldn't work because people are shit?

No, anarchism wouldn't work because there is no such thing.

 

[Trace2010]

Where is the "DOES NOT EXIST" button??

 

[Gattai]

Anarchism does not exist in and of itself...it is only a transitional phase of one social order to another.

this

 

[LeadTaco]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

You mean Free Market? Like what we almost had on the 20's?

Oh what a great Idea, we control the market through what we buy, without government intervention to ruin it all!!!

Swell! So now I can support my favorite food companies, and when they are wealthy enought to buyout and undercut the competitors, they can become the sole giant food company that squashes upstarts and can then increase prices and reduce quality to the point of them selling canned botulism, killing off hundreds of thousands.

But the buyer has freedom! So now they can choose to avoid purchasing that super companies rubbish by starving to death. Ah, Anarchism, the perfect answer to a Market

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

So the majority belief here is that anarchy wouldn't work because people are shit?

not all people

But most are.

 

[Nutcase]

A sufficiently small community is naturally anarcho-capitalist. Do you really think a tiny isolated village of modern Westerners would tear itself apart, if it had no law, no court, and no police installed by the government? There would be isolated disturbances - there always are - but they would get settled.

Scaling that to work on a larger scale, in a mobile and tightly concentrated populace, needs advanced understanding of economics and contracts. It needs dropping a lot of ideas previously taken as given. We lacked a lot of this understanding a century ago. We lack considerably less of it now. Who knows when we will have enough?

Freedom will eventually outcompete slavery, because it is more productive. That has been the general direction of humankind for the last thousands of years. The small setbacks, like the past world wars and the fat-government worship of the past decades, do not last.

 

[Destal]

90% of those people advocating anarchism wouldn't last 10 minutes in an anarchist society.

Read John Locke, Montesquieu, Machiavelli, Bodin. They can explain how having no gov't is a bad, bad idea.

A man after my own heart. Those are some great philosophers you mentioned there.

But reading philosophers with social theories doesn't prove another social theory wrong, unless you agree with them. For every philosopher presenting his ideas, another disputes them. It's hardly proof.

That may be true with most things, but if you actually read the Social Contract I think he pretty much proves that anarchism would never work. Humans have are too social a creature for anarchism to exist. The second a group of people form up to accomplish any task would negate the anarchism.

 

[Artemis923]

In order to live wholesome lives in relative safety, there must be order. There must be laws in place, and people to enforce said laws. Anarchy would never work because humanity is ignorant, flawed, and animalistic.

There is no such thing as a utopia where everyone does as they please, and never will be. What happens when a person decides that he wants to rape and kill?

 

[Lord George]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

You mean Free Market? Like what we almost had on the 20's?

Oh what a great Idea, we control the market through what we buy, without government intervention to ruin it all!!!

Swell! So now I can support my favorite food companies, and when they are wealthy enought to buyout and undercut the competitors, they can become the sole giant food company that squashes upstarts and can then increase prices and reduce quality to the point of them selling canned botulism, killing off hundreds of thousands.

But the buyer has freedom! So now they can choose to avoid purchasing that super companies rubbish by starving to death. Ah, Anarchism, the perfect answer to a Market

Yep sounds good to me, people will have no-one to blame but themselves if they bugger it up, the entire success depends on the choices that the people themselves make rather then what some rich ass snob makes. It also embraces the true meaning of Anarchism, personal freedom for everyone and its a cause I can get behind. Its not perfect but it sure beats shit like Communism or Fascism.

 

[Trace2010]

I forgot to mention that most of the time...people hate the government that is installed AFTER worse than the government that was in place BEFORE.

 

[LeadTaco]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

Poor people adapt or starve to death, soon enough there will be no more poor people and the world will prosper, well until someone gets their hands on some nukes at least.

Fascist much?

Partly Fascist and partly Capitalist, its not perfect but it beats ideologies like communism and socialism.

That's an extremely selfish and heartless ideology you have there.

Yes and a very realisitic one I'm afraid

So you say just let the starving children in Africa suffer and die? Look them in the eyes as they from an easily curable disease? Just don't care?

How exactly does that relate to Anarchism? But no I'm afraid I can't change anything in Africa and I can't help those people so I'm not going to delude myself that I can change it just to make myself feel like a better person.

Its not that hard to change things actually. All I have to do is give that starving child a piece of bread.

Now, I have my first political ally.

 

[Sigel]

I don't agree with or support anarchy because I believe in the end it is futile. I like the idea of anarchy though because I feel it balances something on a certain level-like order needs chaos and vice versa.

 

[jboking]

Anarchy has worked in the past, but never for very long and only in very small towns.

 

[Danzaivar]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

You mean Free Market? Like what we almost had on the 20's?

Oh what a great Idea, we control the market through what we buy, without government intervention to ruin it all!!!

Swell! So now I can support my favorite food companies, and when they are wealthy enought to buyout and undercut the competitors, they can become the sole giant food company that squashes upstarts and can then increase prices and reduce quality to the point of them selling canned botulism, killing off hundreds of thousands.

But the buyer has freedom! So now they can choose to avoid purchasing that super companies rubbish by starving to death. Ah, Anarchism, the perfect answer to a Market

When they start selling canned botulism, you make your own company that sells decent food, you'll suck their market up and they'll either die off or start selling good foods again. If they try to buy you up then you could a) get rich and wait for someone else to do what you just did or b) refuse to sell up.

Man, free markets are terrible. I much prefer the idea of giving everything to the state and then the state gives us back what we need. Governments never do anything wrong, ever.

--

On topic - I personally think libertarianism is probably the closest you can get to anarchism. I mean technically you could get there through communism but to me you're going to 'more state control' to reach 'no state control'. It's a much safer bet to just stick with 'less state control', god knows Russia showed us what happens when you get a bad driver at the wheels.

 

[Asciotes]

Anarchy would lead to Heiharchy, the exact thing they say they don't want. But let's face it that's hypocritical of them because the reason they don't want someone with power is so that they can have more power themsleves.

 

[Destal]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

You mean Free Market? Like what we almost had on the 20's?

Oh what a great Idea, we control the market through what we buy, without government intervention to ruin it all!!!

Swell! So now I can support my favorite food companies, and when they are wealthy enought to buyout and undercut the competitors, they can become the sole giant food company that squashes upstarts and can then increase prices and reduce quality to the point of them selling canned botulism, killing off hundreds of thousands.

But the buyer has freedom! So now they can choose to avoid purchasing that super companies rubbish by starving to death. Ah, Anarchism, the perfect answer to a Market

Yep sounds good to me, people will have no-one to blame but themselves if they bugger it up, the entire success depends on the choices that the people themselves make rather then what some rich ass snob makes. It also embraces the true meaning of Anarchism, personal freedom for everyone and its a cause I can get behind. Its not perfect but it sure beats shit like Communism or Fascism.

And the government can't do anything when a food company breaks into another company and destroys their electricity so all the food goes rotten and they go out of business? What do you do with the physically handicapped or mentally unstable without the government in place?

 

[hxcfreak]

It worked for a while in the west until we became more advanced as a civilization in the U.S.A

 

[Knonsense]

No, sustained anarchy wouldn't work. The most important thing that governments do is that they keep other governments and quasi-governments from existing. A single overthrow wouldn't do it. We would need a force dedicated to overthrowing every new government or gangster that tries to seize power, and this would not be anarchy.

 

[Mintycabbage]

Market Anarchism would solve all of those problems, its based around people being selfish in the first place, and no-ones better at being selfish then human beings.

No, it wouldn't, because I would kill you and take your nice things. Thus, people would soon learn that it was inadvisable to have nice things, lest someone take them. Thus, your theory fails just as hard as regular anarchism, because that's what it is. You just added 'Market' onto the front of it.

No Market Anarchism is the idea that all agencies and organizations are privately owned and operated, so I would pay a security company to shoot you if you attempted to steal my stuff. Have a look at it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism

what about poor people?

There will be no poor people, because most anarchists are also communists. Myself included.

how would it work as people are going to use one company more than another making more money than another and it would be unpreventable without putting controls on the companys thus requring a goverment or other central orginastion

There is no money in communism. Currency is abolished. Everyone works to help each other survive and thrive, and in return everyone has the right to freely take from resources as they need.

are you taking about communism or anarchist-communism sort of thing

Communism still has a government,so he is talking about anarchist-communism. Anyway I have always believed in captilism, probably because most of my family are bankers (burn them at the stake!!!). Capitalism evolved into what it is today over centuries of merchants, whilst communism is an idealism made reality through radical revolutions. Getting back to the point, humans have a basic instinct of being greedy as possible. If everybody has the right to freely take, they will take and take and take. Unless you have something to control, check and monitor the taking. Then you have a government and communism. Also this is personal opinion, but communism gives everybody a certain place in society and your not suppose to move from there (kind of the medieval system of generations of farmers and nothing else), I don't like that thought. For instance what if another Hunter S. Thompson crops up. Instead of being recognised as a amazing rebel, he would have probably been beaten down by the system.