Anarchism?

[streetwaves]

Please do, because as soon as you organize individuals to respond to incidences such as organized crime you have what is essentially a primitive government. They're stipulating and enforcing what the population wants, exactly what current governments do, only on a larger scale.

There are far too many flaws with a government-free society when you try and propose one for the real world which has real world problems. If we lived in a utopia, sure...but we never have and never will have that.

Government is a necessity.

Um, wait a minute here.

Organized individuals = government? I don't see this. Keep in mind that anarchism objects to hierarchy and power, not organization or cooperation.

Why don't you first explain why:
"Inevitable criminal alliances" will form.
A conventional police force or government is the only way to deal with such an occurrence.

Maybe with some positive arguing from you I would have more to work with and respond to.

In response to your last thought: and how does government "work" in the real world? You act as if government is the only thing that could possibly work and assume that it does. Inevitably, it works in some places better than others, and at certain times better than others. Care to explain how this is clearly much better than anarchism? What it boils down to is this: you assume the system is "working" because it's what you're accustomed to, and you're apparently unwilling to even entertain other ideas.

Here's a question for you: what happens when inevitable criminal alliances form at the very top of the system's hierarchy?

[streetwaves]

That, and his understanding of what anarchy is seems to be completely wrong. My guess, listening to too many angsty children raving about how awesome it would be and ignoring the facts.

Anarchy is a state of total freedom to do whatever it is you care to do, be that morally good or bad. That means I could do the most vile acts imaginable under a state of anarchy and that is allowable. As soon as you try to limit a persons ability to do whatever the fuck he wants to do, you no longer have anarchy. If 99% want peace and love, you cannot dictate what the 1% who want to rape and pillage do...that's fundamental of the principle.

Go ahead and edit your post. I'm afraid you're the one here with the least understanding of the political theory of anarchy. As has already been stated here, it is not chaos. And it does not goddamned mean you can "do whatever the fuck you want". Facepalm...

[cale]

Um, wait a minute here.

Organized individuals = government? I don't see this. Keep in mind that anarchism objects to hierarchy and power, not organization or cooperation.

Why don't you first explain why:
"Inevitable criminal alliances" will form.
A conventional police force or government is the only way to deal with such an occurrence.

Maybe with some positive arguing from you I would have more to work with and respond to.

In response to your last thought: and how does government "work" in the real world? You act as if government is the only thing that could possibly work and assume that it does. Inevitably, it works in some places better than others, and at certain times better than others. Care to explain how this is clearly much better than anarchism? What it boils down to is this: you assume the system is "working" because it's what you're accustomed to, and you're apparently unwilling to even entertain other ideas.

Here's a question for you: what happens when inevitable criminal alliances form at the very top of the system's hierarchy?

And your last line shows that you assume it isn't working, pot meet kettle.

I said a primitive government, one where the majority tries to dictate what is and is not acceptable and force that opinion upon others. Look up the definition of anarchy, it's absolute freedom. As soon as you encroach on an individuals freedom to do whatever the hell it is they want to do, you no longer have anarchy. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend this.

Are you really going to claim that crime is not inevitable in society? That would be quite bold of you, I don't suspect you would. As I said, this is the real world and we face real world issues.

As for the condescension about my arguments, save it till you have a proper understanding of the topic you're arguing in favour of.

Go ahead and edit your post. I'm afraid you're the one here with the least understanding of the political theory of anarchy. As has already been stated here, it is not chaos. And it does not goddamned mean you can "do whatever the fuck you want". Facepalm...

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:
A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Actually, yes..it means you can do whatever the fuck you want. Reading > you

[streetwaves]

And your last line shows that you assume it isn't working, pot meet kettle.

Wow. My last line assumes nothing, it asks a question that you didn't answer. Me saying that you assume government does work was in response to the various problems you complained anarchy would cause because 'we live in the real world', not to your question.

I said a primitive government, one where the majority tries to dictate what is and is not acceptable and force that opinion upon others. Look up the definition of anarchy, it's absolute freedom. As soon as you encroach on an individuals freedom to do whatever the hell it is they want to do, you no longer have anarchy. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Go ahead and read up on anarchism as a political philosophy. I'll make it easier for you:

Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists," advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations.[11][12]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2]

As you'll find, there are different spheres of thought on the answers to questions like yours. Some may even advocate pure self-defense in order to avoid the kind of problems you are describing.

Are you really going to claim that crime is not inevitable in society? That would be quite bold of you, I don't suspect you would. As I said, this is the real world and we face real world issues.

No. However, you seem to act as if this is some kind of even bigger problem in an anarchist society. I'll give you a scenario where government doesn't seem to help solve the crime problem:

1. The problem I already mentioned of crime forming at the very top of the hierarchy. In this case, the criminals have essentially been given power, a police force, a military, billions in tax dollars, etc. How is this not a more difficult situation to deal with than a band of weirdos in a free society?

Don't say checks and balances. We can come up with the most well-meaning checks and balances possible and corruption will still find its way into government. It's very good at that.

My point is that criminal behavior is unavoidable on anarchism or under government - but I think we're possibly worse off under a hierarchy. Government does not eliminate crime, and even if I granted for the sake of argument that it can somehow curb crime in the general population, it may simply breed a different type of even more dangerous crime in the power structure that is an even more serious problem.

As for the condescension about my arguments, save it till you have a proper understanding of the topic you're arguing in favour of.

I can't imagine what was running through your head as you typed this. Excuse me guy, here's one of your responses to a perfectly respectful post of mine:

That, and his understanding of what anarchy is seems to be completely wrong. My guess, listening to too many angsty children raving about how awesome it would be and ignoring the facts.

Oops, you're right, zero condescension detected.

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:
A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Actually, yes..it means you can do whatever the fuck you want. Reading > you

Jesus Christ.

Let's start with the obvious: whatever the fuck I, and 99% of normal people want to do is not raping, stealing, and killing. It's infinitely more preferable to cooperate with my fellow human being. Unlike you, I'm apparently not held back from doing retarded shit simply because a government employee might see me doing it.

So there's the human thing of obviously not doing dumb shit, and then there's the fact that killing someone is a violation of their freedom. If anarchism is total freedom, obviously violating freedom would not qualify. I could also argue that crime may be significantly less likely to occur in a society where people freely associate and work together for everyone's benefit. Yeah, that sounds pretty intolerable. "Let's start stirring up the shit, Dave"!

You people that post definitions from Merriam Webster on issues of philosophy really are incredible. Apparently Merriam Webster can summarize in three to four sentences what an entire page like this attempts to summarize. How about this one? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy

I'll ask the question again: what happens when inevitable criminal alliances form at the very top of the system's hierarchy? Apparently you think your question is more valid or somehow presents more of a problem than mine. Ironic considering the amount of complaining I hear about corruption in even just our own government every single day.

Fuck off. I'm here to discuss the idea of anarchism, not have some kid link to the dictionary every five minutes thinking he's clever. If you want to have a conversation, try to participate rather than being a dick.

[cale]

This one's r3vin all the way to redline...

[streetwaves]

This one's r3vin all the way to redline...

But you're not banging on all cylinders.

[frankenbeemer]

Snicker, meet r3v's angsty trolls. I wouldn't wait for anything more thoughtful than your average youtube comment, although they are (unintentionally and sometimes intentionally) amusing.

People often seem most passionate about their ignorance, perhaps it's confusion between phenomenon and qualia. Whatever, it's human nature, which is an important factor in what we are discussing here.

A little repost of Doug Stanhope explaining one facet of the phenomenon:

[Kershaw]

Organized individuals = government? I don't see this. Keep in mind that anarchism objects to hierarchy and power, not organization or cooperation

so how do you keep the world from descending into small territories controlled by warlords? by talking down their m16s? you're going to tell them you rationally object to their use of force to control the land you're on? or are you going to get a group of guys together to kick their ass? and then of course you're going to have to stay well armed to defend from other attacks. and of course battle is not effective without good leaders... so you're going to have to build a hierarchy with powers.... and then... oh wait

anarchism is an idea that will never work (like communism) due to the pitfalls of human nature.

[streetwaves]

so how do you keep the world from descending into small territories controlled by warlords? by talking down their m16s? you're going to tell them you rationally object to their use of force to control the land you're on? or are you going to get a group of guys together to kick their ass? and then of course you're going to have to stay well armed to defend from other attacks. and of course battle is not effective without good leaders... so you're going to have to build a hierarchy with powers.... and then... oh wait

anarchism is an idea that will never work (like communism) due to the pitfalls of human nature.

Let's say I live in a small anarchistic village. There is no hierarchy of power, we all convene at a chosen location every week to have a discussion on the issues we face and utilize direct democracy. To protect our own personal freedom from 'warlords', we do own guns and have agreed we should have a certain group of willing people to guard the perimeter. That's it. They can communicate with each other just fine.

There is no hierarchy of power here. Everyone is agreeing to work together for the common good, and it's all agreed to or we don't do it. Organization is not what anarchism rejects. If suddenly one guy in the group insisted he knew best and attempted to become a dictator, that's what we'd object to. But direct democracy? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Again, the question ignores a number of questions I could ask about government that make it sound as if it doesn't work. In my opinion, having grown up in the system, we're both a bit biased against anarchism for that reason.

What if our tax money is used badly and our military sucks? What if the military attempts to seize power itself (has this never happened)? What if corruption occurs at the highest level of government, where accountability - by definition - is mostly diminished? Such questions don't suggest that government "can't work"? I think they may, and so the main pro of anarchism is not that it eliminates the world's problems completely, but that at least in anarchistic societies there is the closest thing we can get to absolute freedom and the absence of subordination.

[mrsleeve]

^

WOW you need to study the founding of this nation a little bit more!!! You are a fool.

[streetwaves]

^

WOW you need to study the founding of this nation a little bit more!!! You are a fool.

...

[mrsleeve]

you cant read either. Copy paste into goggles text to speech function

[streetwaves]

you cant read either. Copy paste into goggles text to speech function

My post had nothing to do with the founding of this country. But okay let me go check out goggle.

[mrsleeve]

Well the founding of this country had a lot to do with your post.

[streetwaves]

Well the founding of this country had a lot to do with your post.

You going to go ahead and tell me what I need to know, then? Respond to my post rather than telling me to go to goggle. The questions I asked about government were about any government, not about ours in particular. Perhaps that confused you.