Exploration of the Political Thinker: Interview #1 - Athias

Author: RationalMadman
Politics
interview
Entertaining
fascinating
EM

Posts

Total: 7
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Welcome to the Political edition of Exploration of X Thinker! Unlike the ERT, EPT will be focusing on politics and while religion may come up in conversation it by no means necessarily will.

Today we have a diehard anarchist. While this outlook is one many of us would regard as scary and immoral, it is important that we come into these things ready to have our minds opened or at least learn more about why we find the person's political system to be wrong.

I will not hold back in saying that I personally find Anarchism to be immature and immoral but that doesn't make me able to dismiss this individual's outlook as not worth hearing out. Instead, by hearing it out we can better understand the pros and cons of it more specifically and perhaps take the good parts into our own ideal political system.
Topic's author
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
Do you find the stigma that almost all other political systems have against Anarchism to be fair?

Where do you feel Anarchism is, in relation to the wings and political spectrum?
#3
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Today we have a diehard anarchist.
Not a "diehard" anarchist. Anarchism is a logical consequence of sustaining individualist philosophy.

Do you find the stigma that almost all other political systems have against Anarchism to be fair?
No, but it comes as no shock. The hegemony preserves its capacity by inculcating the populace over which it presumes authority with notions of dependency on the state. The relationship between an individual citizen and his State virtually reflects that of a child and parent, rather than that of a patron and servant. The state justifies its plenary authority by perpetuating the myth that its proxy extends the interests of a nebulous and unidentifiable collective imperative, all while eliding the building block of any sustainably functional and free society--the moral individual. So, I do not concern myself with the stigma perpetuated by all other political systems because all other political systems are logically and morally inconsistent.

Where do you feel Anarchism is, in relation to the wings and political spectrum?
I do not "feel" that anarchism is anywhere on any political spectrum. Anarchism is the rejection of the State. Political spectrum is merely a placebo offered to a deluded electorate who believe that they have a significant function in how the State operates.

Topic's author
#4
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
If what you are saying is true, why did we begin at anarchy and end up here? If we began with the system that is most logical and which all gravitate towards, how and why did we consistently move away from it in pretty much each and every continent, country etc?
#5
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
If what you are saying is true, why did we begin at anarchy and end up here?
You lack the empirical data to presume that we "begun" at anarchy. But assuming this is the case, why'd we end up here? The fear of death. And this can manifest in the formations of clans and tribes, or the enslavement of a populace by a war lord. The State is here, for example, because it manipulates its populace into feeling dependent, while codifying the force it threatens through law.

If we began with the system that is most logical and which all gravitate towards, how and why did we consistently move away from it in pretty much each and every continent, country etc?
Why are you presuming "we" had anything to do with that which you allege has been a consistent progression away from anarchy? Authority has always been concentrated among a select number of people. So by "we" do you mean the general populace, or members of the State? Second, if time is supposed to serve as a metric to how logically and morally consistent a progression is, then why after millennia do "we" still practice slavery?  My point is, RationalMadman, you have to substantiate how political systems gravitate towards the most logical before asking me a question about it.
Topic's author
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
If, consistently, any group of our species (the 'we') in any terrain, any ethnicity and any IQ level average among them, pushes away from anarchy rapidly as the generations progress, it implies that there is indeed a logical 'gravitating away from anarchy' consistent among even entirely opposite systems.

On top of that, anarchy itself is an illusion. When is everyone free, even of social hierarchy and norms pressuring conformity? Never, right?
#7
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
If, consistently, any group of our species (the 'we') in any terrain, any ethnicity and any IQ level average among them, pushes away from anarchy rapidly as the generations progress, it implies that there is indeed a logical 'gravitating away from anarchy' consistent among even entirely opposite systems.
Once again, why are you presuming the "we" in any group are the ones pushing away from anarchy? What capacity has that group ever had to alter the nature or authority of their government as members of the electorate? Case in point: can "we" vote out democracy? Furthermore, you have yet to inform the trend of government as a logically consistent--and let's not forget morally consistent (since you did allege that anarchy was immoral)--progression.

On top of that, anarchy itself is an illusion
Anarchy is an ideal, not an illusion.

When is everyone free, even of social hierarchy
What is this social hierarchy of which you speak/type?

and norms pressuring conformity?
Non sequitur. No one presumes that one could be "free" of their emotions. This is a political discussion, remember?