Anarchy and how it works

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Anarchy has 2 basic goals:

1. Remove anti-anarchy elements, such as governments and oppressive government-like groups which rise in society

2. Increase number of anarchy supporters

Anarchy is, to put it simply, opposite of government.
Thus, in anti-anarchy, government exists.
In anarchy, government doesnt exist and no individual has power to govern others.

It is a principle of negative right.
Government thinks someone has right to govern others.
Anarchy is opposite(negative): no one has right to govern others.

Thus, the simple goal of anarchy is to prevent one from governing another, to remove elements in society which enable governing actions.

Anarchy can be put in more popular words, such as "Everyone should have freedom and passion", which is obvious truth which cannot even be denied.

Its a principle put in many forms, even positive rights form such as greatest number of freedoms everyone can have.

Anarchy is essentially not really consequentialist, because it doesnt say that one group has right to violate rights of person to uphold their own, nor did the idea of anarchy revolve around dictatorship of many above few.
It is simply a negative rights principle which says that anyone who violates negative rights should be fought against.
Thus, even if majority violates negative rights of one, anarchy would side with one against majority.

Simply put, if one does not violate negative rights (if he doesnt govern others), he is protected by negative rights (he cannot be governed by others).

Thus, from this principle are derived body rights, where body of one person cannot be controlled by another person.

Thus, any elements where one governs another are to be removed or reduced to their minimum.

Thus, in desired ideal outcome, it is a world where everyone has greatest freedom.

Or ideally, said in a different way, where no one governs another.

However, while anarchy on a large scale doesnt exist, anarchy on small scale can exist anywhere, as any individual can choose to follow principles of negative rights of anarchy.

Thus, as anarchy supporters increase in numbers, the amount of anarchy (amount of negative rights upheld) increases.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
So what's going to happen when the armed psychopathic thug takes your eggs and raspberries.
Topic's author
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So what's going to happen when the armed psychopathic thug takes your eggs and raspberries
According to anarchy, anyone who violates negative rights should be fought against, be it government or thug.
#4
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
I reject the terminology because it aims to seize a definition which already has bad connotations for no reason.

Anarchy has a lot of baggage with it, it invokes the idea of roaming bands of thugs, of the immediate collapse of a civilization. Just as it invoked that image in the first poster (zed).

If you have a moral system and you intend to create a system to enforce it, that is not what people call anarchy. If you refuse to call it government at least call it civilization.
Topic's author
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Anarchy has a lot of baggage with it, it invokes the idea of roaming bands of thugs, of the immediate collapse of a civilization.
Yes. Sadly, the most logical things are often most misunderstood.

The only reason people hate anarchy is because they believe they are incapable of solving problems on their own if there is no government.

They also dont understand that the idea of anarchy is not merely limited to simple abolishing of government, but gradual reduction of government and governing is possible as well.

For example, smaller government violates much less negative rights than big government.

But thats why they have to paint in their imagination that absence or reduction of government leads to some total collapse of everything and everyone. Its the only way they can justify giving up all their freedom in exchange for some limited safety government provides.

However, what they cannot see is that every government suffers from lust for power, to conquer what hasnt been conquered yet, to expand further. There is a saying which goes "What you dont have defines you". And what government doesnt have, government will try its best to obtain. We are few steps away from global war thanks to many governments competing for power.

Suddenly, instead of thugs, you have many governments dropping bombs everywhere, limiting free speech, violating people's bodies, managing people's private lives and property, taking people's money to fund their endless global military competition...

It seems that giving up their freedom in exchange for government protection didnt exactly turn out to be such a great deal after all.

But then again, giving up freedom for safety is rarely a good deal.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
So who is making these rules?
#7
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,902
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
This is incorrect. 

Anarchy's etymology means without hierarchy. 

You can have a government or decision making bodies without hierarchy. They can be representative or act in a democratic way. 
Topic's author
#8
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
So who is making these rules?
They are basic principles derived from morality which cannot be denied in any way.

No matter what desirable moral goal you post, it doesnt change that most desirable state by tautology is having freedom to realize what you want.

When I say that everyone should have freedom and passion, I am simply by tautology saying that no one should be without freedom and passion.

Topic's author
#9
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
They can be representative or act in a democratic way. 
Thief general

#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Basic principles are variable.

And the fundamental truth assumes in essence to philosophically postulate an essential concept...How's that for tautology.

Thing is though, basic human units are also variable and therefore never equal.

So by default, the philosophical principle of anarchy is unworkable in practice.

Which is why social systems have evolved as they have.
Topic's author
#11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 366
Posts: 11,088
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
 basic human units are also variable and therefore never equal
Human units being not equal and humans having different wants doesnt change that all humans want to realize their wants. Thus, only the principle which enables people to realize their wants can be logically justified. The only other option is to destroy people's wants, and people dont want having their wants destroyed. Thus, only anarchy can be logically justified, since people's wants are most important to them.
Individual seeking to destroy wants of others cannot be justified.
If someone wanted to prevent people from eating ice cream, he would obviously be considered unjustified.
Thus, preventing people from realizing their wants cannot be better for them than letting people realize their wants, as realizing their wants is most important to them.
When applied equally, it simply means no individual can govern another, and each individual governs himself and his property.

So by default, the philosophical principle of anarchy is unworkable in practice.
People rejecting anarchy so they could violate freedom of others doesnt mean that anarchy doesnt work. It just means people are bad. Any individual can choose not to violate freedom of other. Thus, any individual can practice anarchy at any time.
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,198
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Any individual can choose not to violate  freedom of other.

I would suggest that we are innately programmed to be selfish.

Though for sure, we have developed our ability to overthink.

So some social groupings are reasonably fair, but with a level of underlying reasonable selfishness.

You will never completely level the playing field in favour of equality.

Some people will seek guidance and some people will lead and assume privilege.

That's how it works.