Why does anyone wants to be an anarchist?

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 71
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Let’s say the government is fine, then why seek “freedom” if nothing is supporting you?

If the government is corrupt, then I think you want people to govern itself, in this case, is it still an “anarchy”?

There is no authority to suppress them in anarchy but there is also nothing to support them. Every man for himself. In an anarchy one could get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc. Why would anything want that? More than that, why do some “anarchists” support something that isn’t even anarchy? 
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
You may be interested in this.
Topic's author
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
For them, calling themselves an anarchist when they are a centre liberal is comparable of calling someone a commie when they are a neo-nazi just because it is "National Socialism".
#4
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think the strongest argument for anarchism is.

1. Initiating force against someone who is not initiating force against you is unethical.
2. governments existence is based on the seizing of private property by force which is initiating force against someone who's not initiating force against the government the first place.
3. Therefore, government's existence is unethical

#5
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
When college kids learn about the non-aggression principle for the first time they get excited. After awhile they come to the realization that the concept of an anarchist society is a bit misguided, and a totally laissez faire approach like anarcho-capitalism isn't really even possible. 
Topic's author
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well this man must not like communism then. Nevertheless, if the union initiates that everyone owns their own things, then it is laissez-faire economy or something, and even then, regulation exists to be libertarian(right), not anarchist. Libs aren’t anarchists.
Topic's author
#7
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
Well when I got into politics I describe myself as an “ancap”. An ancap society is not impossible, but wouldn’t need to exist as the regulation is hard and soon the corporations will be willing to steal your information, making it a non-anarchist society. A true “ancap” society after years will be authoritarian capitalism.
#8
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Libertarianism is just a pole on the compass and at the very bottom you reach anarchism. Capitalism versus socialism an economic matters pulls one to the right and to the left respectively.
Topic's author
#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Sum1hugme
Weirdly, Jorgensen’s libertarianism is libright.
#10
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
A true “ancap” society after years will be authoritarian capitalism.

I think so too. It gets tricky when it comes to law enforcement. An-caps assume that everyone in society magically agrees with their definition of capitalism. There's also the problem that even libertarians inherently disagree on certain subjects. For instance, how would abortion be handled in an-cap societies? Half the population might believe fetuses have rights, and the other half might not. You need an arbiter. 
Topic's author
#11
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
A more extreme version would be fordism where humans are controlled by this one corporation providing everything but that is nothing practical either. If the proletariat hero can rule the state like the bourgeois used to have, then corporations can just BE the governmental force until something else outbreaks, further, further, loops.
#12
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah. Andrew Yang did a good job of explaining some of those concerns too. I g2g back to work for now but can expand later. 
#13
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah there are gradations of libertarianism
#14
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Let’s say the government is fine, then why seek “freedom” if nothing is supporting you?
How is the government "fine"?

If the government is corrupt, then I think you want people to govern itself, in this case, is it still an “anarchy”?
Yes. Anarchy is the opposition to a State, i.e. centralized government.

There is no authority to suppress them in anarchy but there is also nothing to support them.
Too many ambiguous references. Let me ask: would you murder in the absence of law? How about rape a child?

Every man for himself.
If he chooses...

In an anarchy one could get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc.
In the dominion of government, people get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc. Government doesn't offer a solution to that.

Why would anything want that?
Why would anyone want to be assaulted, murdered, or raided? Low self-esteem, perhaps? But that has nothing to do with anarchy.

More than that, why do some “anarchists” support something that isn’t even anarchy? 
You haven't yet demonstrated an understanding of anarchy.


#15
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
You may be interested in this.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this forum's resident anarchist.

#16
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Are you an atheist too? 
#17
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Are you an atheist too? 
No.
#18
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Do you believe rights come from God?
#19
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Do you believe rights come from God?
No.

#20
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Do you believe rights come from government? 
#21
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
If we were to live in an Utopian society, I believe the market would transition and shift to a full lassiez fair style
#22
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Do you believe rights come from government? 
No.

#23
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Where do rights come from? 
#24
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Where do rights come from? 
Rights are moral concepts. So they come from an analysis of the human condition. The subjective prescriptions for that which "ought" or "ought not" be.
#25
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Rights are moral concepts. So they come from an analysis of the human condition. The subjective prescriptions for that which "ought" or "ought not" be.


There are innumerable interpretations of rights stemming from human analysis. Do you believe only one of those analyses is correct? 
#26
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle

There are innumerable interpretations of rights stemming from human analysis. Do you believe only one of those analyses is correct? 
No. Only one is logically consistent.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Was there ever a society without hierarchy and therefore some sort of order.

Anarchy is like true socialism....A philosophical concept only....Both rendered impractical by the inherent nature of the beast.

True socialism would be anarchy.
Topic's author
#28
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, but anarcho-socialism was never achieved and what about anarcho-capitalism?
#29
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Was there ever a society without hierarchy and therefore some sort of order.
Is anarchy the absence of order?

Anarchy is like true socialism....A philosophical concept only....Both rendered impractical by the inherent nature of the beast.
Redundant. Governments are philosophical concepts.

True socialism would be anarchy.
No it wouldn't. The commutative aspect of property socialism proposes would inevitably give rise to the management of a State.
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
A. Yes...A state of disorder...Absolute freedom of the individual.

B. Governments are real enough.

C. "Give rise to the management of a State"......Exactly....True socialism is only a philosophical concept.



Anarchy is only a philosophical concept.

So everyone agrees that tomorrow will be anarchy..... And one person will turn to another and ask, what shall I do now.