|
|
| Page 5 of 6 |
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
 Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 01:02 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 07:02; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wawrzul
Posts: 2336
Location: Cracow, Poland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 13:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| wawrzul wrote: | All this talk reminds of what Joker said in Dark Knight "Chaos is fair". Anarchy would be the downfall of modern civilizations, because the world of man would become just like the world of animals - only the strongest survive. This way the weakest are annihilated and the strongest prevail. You cant argue this is not fair.
I guess that, in the state of anarchy, between turf wars and protecting what's yours there wouldn't be much time to invent a CPU  |
Not only this, but even with animals, they are in packs, tribes, hordes - never each for itself. Man is more intelligent than that and can communicate more elaborately, so social groups have naturally evolved and grown from initial tribes to civilizations. And, like with animals, someone has always been either appointed or socially accepted or forcefully has taken a leading role in that social group.
When listening to Ronhrin and his supposed "logic" and "reason"  , one has to wonder why anarchy has not been the naturally predominant form of government in the world. Of course, when one answers that question, it becomes very apparent why "anarchy" is an unachievable ideal of an utopian society.
| wawrzul wrote: | | Just like i hate democracy (i consider monarchy as the type of rule i would like to have in my country, no elections where stupid people vote for their tv favourites but rather giving the power from father to son - where the father cares what he leaves behind) i would stay with it rather than to try to survive in anarchy. |
Monarchy is a double-edged sword. On one side, when it is successful, it can really blossom. When the monarch cares about the people and taxes are only charged according to needs, and everyone is taken care of, then of course there is nothing better than that in my opinion. On the other hand, history has shown how bad this can go when the monarch is someone who cares only about the top of the "food chain".
I am not sure how a modern monarchy would look like, and I do not mean constitutional monarchies like UK. Perhaps that form of government has passed away, for better or worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 13:33 Post subject: |
|
|
iNatan, that reminds me. You claimed that absolute monarchy has been the most successful form of ruling a country (not sure if it was in this thread or another). Could you give a few examples and explain how you measure their success?
The way I see it civilization really started to blossom after monarchs lost their absolute power, 19th and 20th century. Common people's life started getting better and the influence of the clergy went down, while the countries which kept ruling with an iron fist went to the dogs ie. Russia.
I'd much rather have what we have today than some spoiled brat deciding the fate of the country depending on his mood, because that's his "divine right".
| iNatan wrote: |
I am not sure how a modern monarchy would look like, and I do not mean constitutional monarchies like UK. Perhaps that form of government has passed away, for better or worse. |
Sadly, it hasn't.
Oman
Saudi Arabia
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 13:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | wawrzul wrote: | All this talk reminds of what Joker said in Dark Knight "Chaos is fair". Anarchy would be the downfall of modern civilizations, because the world of man would become just like the world of animals - only the strongest survive. This way the weakest are annihilated and the strongest prevail. You cant argue this is not fair.
I guess that, in the state of anarchy, between turf wars and protecting what's yours there wouldn't be much time to invent a CPU |
Not only this, but even with animals, they are in packs, tribes, hordes - never each for itself. Man is more intelligent than that and can communicate more elaborately, so social groups have naturally evolved and grown from initial tribes to civilizations. And, like with animals, someone has always been either appointed or socially accepted or forcefully has taken a leading role in that social group.
If you listen to Ronhrin and his supposed "logic" and "reason" , one has to wonder why anarchy has not been the naturally predominant form of government in the world. Of course, when you answer that question, it becomes very apparent why "anarchy" is an unachievable ideal.
| wawrzul wrote: | | Just like i hate democracy (i consider monarchy as the type of rule i would like to have in my country, no elections where stupid people vote for their tv favourites but rather giving the power from father to son - where the father cares what he leaves behind) i would stay with it rather than to try to survive in anarchy. |
Monarchy is a double-edged sword. On one side, when it is successful, it can really blossom. When the monarch cares about the people and taxes are only charged according to needs, and everyone is taken care of, then of course there is nothing better than that in my opinion. On the other hand, history has shown how bad this can go when the monarch is someone who cares only about the top of the "food chain".
I am not sure how a modern monarchy would look like, and I do not mean constitutional monarchies like UK. Perhaps that form of government has passed away, for better or worse. |
You're missing the point, and all you're really doing it by commenting with unrelated arguments.
The mere fact that you responded to wawrzul post in such a manner is indicative that you don't really understand the concept of anarchy as a political system.
There are hundreds of different schools of thought regarding anarchy, just as there are hundreds of schools of thought regarding statist solutions.
In short, anarchy is merely the rejection of representative power, state power by acknowledging the fact that is fundamentally corrupt, take the political spectrum that was posted on this thread, anarchy is everything that falls into the lower part of the spectrum, where you have less or no governmental control, you can have leftist anarchistic solutions, centrist anarchistic solutions and rightest anarchistic solutions.
The only uniform claim by anarchistic philosophy is the claim that a centralized power institution such as the state is not only corrupt, but slow and inefficient in addressing the problems of a pluralistic population.
Therefore, the power system should be within the community that it's supposed to serve, rather than in the outside as a representative of force!
By changing this simple issue, you are allowing communities, either it be geographical communities or complex social-economical communities to organize within their own terms!
This communities will work under the premise of free association, you would be free to associate and disassociate from them, also, on your own terms, this might be because you disagreed with the law within this community or otherwise.
This way, power comes from within, and specific problems are discussed within the community, rather than in a distant place!
The thing is, unlike current structure, where you are forcefully inserted into such community, also defined as country, and you have to accept everything defined by central government without question.
With such system, you would simultaneously be freely associated with several different communities of both geographic and social economical nature.
You would be subject to the laws of each community and each specific punishment they defined for every given law, but since nothing is enforced upon you because you freely associate with them, if you don't agree with the law structure of a given community, you can simple disassociate from them, something which is clearly impossible today!
This is very much like what happens on social economical communication within the Internet. The reason I keep using the Internet as an example, it's merely because, it is an Anarchistic system, and a great reflection on society and how it works without centralized power, what happens within the Internet is a simplification of what Anarchists are trying to advocate.
Tell me something, do you support centralized regulation and control of the Internet, or do you support it to be self regulated by it's people (leave it be as it currently is).
If you respond the latter, then you are basically advocating Anarchistic principle within the Internet.
Last edited by Ronhrin on Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:04; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:02 Post subject: |
|
|
@DarkPassenger Well, but success I meant the largest time span in history, but also you can look at ancient Greece, the various empires (inc. The Bulgarian empires ), the renaissance, etc. 20th century, in contrast, has almost everything positive is largely clouded by war war war. Of course, this is not fair, because advancement in science has been a huge factor to the totality of these wars, but still.
As I said, monarchy can be a bless or a curse, and that gamble is not to my liking either.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:11 Post subject: |
|
|
@Ronhrin I see your point to a degree about the internet, but you seem to have confused any type of freedom and deregulation with anarchy. Also, huge difference between the internet, which is a small aspect in one's life, one cannot compare the internet to a government system. And the mere fact that you do need even if the tiniest internet regulation (just as an example: child pornography), your thesis is flawed.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | @Ronhrin I see your point to a degree about the internet, but you seem to have confused any type of freedom and deregulation with anarchy. Also, huge difference between the internet, which is a small aspect in one's life, one cannot compare the internet to a government system. And the mere fact that you do need even if the tiniest internet regulation (just as an example: child pornography), your thesis is flawed. |
Anarchy is by definition the rejection of central regulation, and the empower of local regulation, where everyone has a say in a pure democratic model!
The Internet influence on one's life change's from person to person, the thing is that it works as a model!
Great example indeed!
But again, I think you missed the point, and your example actually disproves your point.
Child pornography and pedophilia cannot really be stopped, it can be heavily condemned by most of us, with this I mean that it can be driven away from within our inner circles and the communities that we support and belong to!
This is why you don't see child pornography within the forums (communities) that we're members of!
What you are basically claiming is that a certain community of pedophiles will probably arise, but the mere fact that you can only be part of a system if you freely associate with them, and since children will never join a community of abusers, the only way the pedophiles would have access to children would be by take them from their own communities.
They are using force against another community, therefore, force against them is justified.
Besides the subject is much more complex than this, because in this specific circumstance where you have active child abusers, chemical castration was a justifiable act of force.
There's always methods to solve problems without centralized government.
Every sane person on the planet would not tolerate communities of child abusers because is against everything that is morally accepted.
If anything, centralized power unable us from saving every single children on the planet, you have middle eastern countries where marrying (and sexually abusing) a 7 year old, is justifiable, and the only reason why you cannot change this situation is because of political power and influence that this specific countries have!
If they were solely a small community of abusers, you could bet that this would not be allowed anywhere on the planet!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:46 Post subject: |
|
|
do you know who is the biggest anarchist in the history of the civilization?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | What you are basically claiming is that a certain community of pedophiles will probably arise, but the mere fact that you can only be part of a system if you freely associate with them, and since children will never join a community of abusers, the only way the pedophiles would have access to children would be by take them from their own communities. |
Unfortunately that is not true. It has already happened in reality, small communities where paedophiles get their own children that they abuse within the community.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| psychokillergr wrote: | | do you know who is the biggest anarchist in the history of the civilization? |
That question is flawed when considering anarchistic philosophy, but please tell me who do you think he is?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | If they were solely a small community of abusers, you could bet that this would not be allowed anywhere on the planet! |
And if they were not as small group? Would you accept them into your society? I guarantee you that once something is legitimized, a lot more people would not be afraid to identify themselves as part of that thing. As you say, because backward societies have allowed this kind of behavior unchallenged, it has been as rampart as it is, and even worse. It has been modern governments that have forced these laws, which you claim are immoral  , that protect children from such perversions of the human mind.
But lets leave all this. You keep saying that anything that is not popular cannot be debated properly. And yet you did not answer, if as you claim is so logical and simple, why has this not become the natural form of society, and indeed popular? Please answer this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | What you are basically claiming is that a certain community of pedophiles will probably arise, but the mere fact that you can only be part of a system if you freely associate with them, and since children will never join a community of abusers, the only way the pedophiles would have access to children would be by take them from their own communities. |
Unfortunately that is not true. It has already happened in reality, small communities where paedophiles get their own children that they abuse within the community. |
Yes, I'm aware of this, but the thing is, if you cannot fully stop this with centralized government currently in power, then it only proves government inefficiency!
Pedophile is condemned by every sane person on the planet, therefore, if such groups are able to emerge within current structure, then it doesn't justify why current structure should continue to exist.
Leo said that because child abuser communities will appear within society, therefore we need the government!
But if within governmental control, they still appear, then the government is unable to solve the problem on it's own!
It doesn't justify the existence of centralized power.
The only reason this communities are able to strive is because of high secrecy and practically a immunity position within society.
And they would strive on any circumstance, until they are discovered, when they are, they would be promptly trialed in a public forum or local law!
The mechanics of solving this problem doesn't change from Statist to Anarchist solution, the problem would be dwelt with in the exact same manner.
Time in prison, chemical castration, whatever it would be decided by local trial and law.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:58 Post subject: |
|
|
you maybe laugh but i really dont care
Christ , his living and his work was against material profit but he also was allowing trade and profit
but not against the human dignity
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 14:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 07:02; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | | Leo said that because child abuser communities will appear within society, therefore we need the government! |
That is not what I said. 
But please answer my question above, Ronhrin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ |
Clever man that Noam Chomsky.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | | If they were solely a small community of abusers, you could bet that this would not be allowed anywhere on the planet! |
And if they were not as small group? Would you accept them into your society? I guarantee you that once something is legitimized, a lot more people would not be afraid to identify themselves as part of that thing. As you say, because backward societies have allowed this kind of behavior unchallenged, it has been as rampart as it is, and even worse. It has been modern governments that have forced these laws, which you claim are immoral , that protect children from such perversions of the human mind.
But lets leave all this. You keep saying that anything that is not popular cannot be debated properly. And yet you did not answer, if as you claim is so logical and simple, why has this not become the natural form of society, and indeed popular? Please answer this. |
Only to conclude the discussion about pedophiles, even in countries where such acts are commonly accepted by law, I guarantee you that majority of people opposes to them, the reason why they don't do anything about it is because of fear, such acts are usually practiced and supported by the empowered mostly, and in such countries, to disagree with local establishement is to be thrown in prison, or misteriously die in their sleep!
I would disagree, I would state that increasingly more and more people are accepting the benefits of what Anarchists propose.
And the reason why it hasn't become more popular decades ago, simple because of propaganda and incorrect indoctrination.
Much like what happens with Religion.
I have seen countless debates about Anarchy, there's one i saw sometime ago with Noam Chomsky (one of the most reasonable intellectuals proposing anarchistic principle), all the interviews made by public television with him, the conversations are highly steered from his points, the interviewers never allow the man to properly respond and so forth.
He defines this type of debate as a debate without concision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision
He basically states that when discussing what is publicly accepted, you need only to state facts, example "Hitler was a dictator", "Pol Pot was a genocidial maniac"
But when you state facts that go against people's prior indoctrination and public perception, the mere fact doesn't suffice, to state that "representative democracy is corrupt and doesn't work" requires proof, and since you are not allowed to describe this proof within the confines of public television, people will automatically reject your statement or regard your ideas as ridiculous!
So my answer to you as to why hasn't anarchy became more popular in the latter decades was merely because it has been driven away from public understanding.
This is why all discussions made within the confines of public television are made within a one dimensional axis, left-wing, right-wing politics, you very rarely see anyone discussing things in the authoritian axis, this is pure propaganda to keep people thinking in merely one dimension and unaware of the other!
If you research about this, you would see that the rise of anarchism acceptance within the last 10 years has sky rocketed due to the Internet!
There are several anarchistic communities appearing everywhere, some with up to 10.000 members such as one in New Hampshire.
The Internet defies governmental and corporate control, and if uncensored, people will increasingly become more educated to this end.
That's why you have all the back talk trying to censor and control the internet, it's not only because of piracy, it's also due to the fact that public opinion cannot be controlled within the internet and government power fears this!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nalo
nothing
Posts: 13522
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Nalo on Wed, 3rd Jul 2024 07:01; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: |
He is also an Anarchist |
...and referring to himself as a libertarian socialist. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views#Views_on_anarchism
| Quote: |
In practice Chomsky has tended to emphasize the philosophical tendency of anarchism to criticize all forms of illegitimate authority. He has been reticent about theorizing an anarchist society in detail, although he has outlined its likely value systems and institutional framework in broad terms. According to Chomsky, the variety of anarchism which he favors is
"... a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of, say, Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally, they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization which might be national or even international in scope. And these decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return, and in which, in fact, they live."
On the question of the government of political and economic institutions, Chomsky has consistently emphasized the importance of grassroots democratic forms. Accordingly current Anglo-American institutions of representative democracy "would be criticized by an anarchist of this school on two grounds. First of all because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state, and secondly -- and critically -- because the representative democracy is limited to the political sphere and in no serious way encroaches on the economic sphere." |
Libertarianism and Anarchism are basically the same thing.
They both locate themselves on the libertarian end of the spectrum and both can have left wing, right wing tendecies.
Most Anarchists define themselves as having more left wing tendencies, but there are also several schools of thought with right wing tendencies!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ronhrin wrote: | And the reason why it hasn't become more popular decades ago, simple because of propaganda and incorrect indoctrination.
Much like what happens with Religion.
I have seen countless debates about Anarchy, there's one i saw sometime ago with Noam Chomsky (one of the most reasonable intellectuals proposing anarchistic principle), all the interviews made by public television with him, the conversations are highly steered from his points, the interviewers never allow the man to properly respond and so forth.
He defines this type of debate as a debate without concision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision
He basically states that when discussing what is publicly accepted, you need only to state facts, example "Hitler was a dictator", "Pol Pot was a genocidial maniac"
But when you state facts that go against people's prior indoctrination and public perception, the mere fact doesn't suffice, to state that "representative democracy is corrupt and doesn't work" requires proof, and since you are not allowed to describe this proof within the confines of public television, people will automatically reject your statement or regard your ideas as ridiculous!
So my answer to you as to why hasn't anarchy became more popular in the latter decades was merely because it has been driven away from public understanding.
This is why all discussions made within the confines of public television are made within a one dimensional axis, left-wing, right-wing politics, you very rarely see anyone discussing things in the authoritian axis, this is pure propaganda to keep people thinking in merely one dimension and unaware of the other!
If you research about this, you would see that the rise of anarchism acceptance within the last 10 years has sky rocketed due to the Internet!
There are several anarchistic communities appearing everywhere, some with up to 10.000 members such as one in New Hampshire.
The Internet defies governmental and corporate control, and if uncensored, people will increasingly become more educated to this end.
That's why you have all the back talk trying to censor and control the internet, it's not only because of piracy, it's also due to the fact that public opinion cannot be controlled within the internet and government power fears this! |
@Ronhrin And indeed you have answered yourself why anarchy is nothing but a naive idea. I did not ask why anarchy has not become popular in the last decades, I asked why social groups have not evolved naturally from tribal to anarchic? You have convinced yourself that this is the most natural form of world order, yet you need the internet to spread it and convince people. You can blame it on propaganda all you want, but let's go with that. What will happen with similar propaganda in your anarchic society? Would you ban it such "propaganda" because it does not fit your world view. Or do you naively believe that everyone in the world would just magically share your world view? Because it seems anything that does not fit your world view is propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73213
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Also, you must be able to see that your form of anarchy cannot coincide with any other type of world order. You cannot have a state with a government and then a blank spot on the map where there is "here be dragons" anarchy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 15:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | Ronhrin wrote: | And the reason why it hasn't become more popular decades ago, simple because of propaganda and incorrect indoctrination.
Much like what happens with Religion.
I have seen countless debates about Anarchy, there's one i saw sometime ago with Noam Chomsky (one of the most reasonable intellectuals proposing anarchistic principle), all the interviews made by public television with him, the conversations are highly steered from his points, the interviewers never allow the man to properly respond and so forth.
He defines this type of debate as a debate without concision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concision
He basically states that when discussing what is publicly accepted, you need only to state facts, example "Hitler was a dictator", "Pol Pot was a genocidial maniac"
But when you state facts that go against people's prior indoctrination and public perception, the mere fact doesn't suffice, to state that "representative democracy is corrupt and doesn't work" requires proof, and since you are not allowed to describe this proof within the confines of public television, people will automatically reject your statement or regard your ideas as ridiculous!
So my answer to you as to why hasn't anarchy became more popular in the latter decades was merely because it has been driven away from public understanding.
This is why all discussions made within the confines of public television are made within a one dimensional axis, left-wing, right-wing politics, you very rarely see anyone discussing things in the authoritian axis, this is pure propaganda to keep people thinking in merely one dimension and unaware of the other!
If you research about this, you would see that the rise of anarchism acceptance within the last 10 years has sky rocketed due to the Internet!
There are several anarchistic communities appearing everywhere, some with up to 10.000 members such as one in New Hampshire.
The Internet defies governmental and corporate control, and if uncensored, people will increasingly become more educated to this end.
That's why you have all the back talk trying to censor and control the internet, it's not only because of piracy, it's also due to the fact that public opinion cannot be controlled within the internet and government power fears this! |
@Ronhrin And indeed you have answered yourself why anarchy is nothing but a naive idea. I did not ask why anarchy has not become popular in the last decades, I asked why social groups have not evolved naturally from tribal to anarchic? You have convinced yourself that this is the most natural form of world order, yet you need the internet to spread it and convince people. You can blame it on propaganda all you want, but let's go with that. What will happen with similar propaganda in your anarchic society? Would you ban it such "propaganda" because it does not fit your world view. Or do you naively believe that everyone in the world would just magically share your world view? Because it seems anything that does not fit your world view is propaganda. |
Quite on the contrary, and it's actually very simple to understand.
Currently we are forcefully imposed under someone else world view, it has been imposed in all of us, it is irrelevant if you agree with it or not, the fact is that some people agree, and some disagree, but everyone is forcefully confined to accept others world views, those who oppose and disagree, can do nothing, we cannot leave and form our own community because we are always under the power of central government!
This is the fundamental core why centralized power can not exist!
It might be good and wanted for some, but not by all, and those who don't want it, have to accept it!
And about your entire argument in the last post, you seem to be regarding Anarchism as flawed because people have not naturally evolved to accept it.
But still there's something extremely similar and in fact related to government that people simply haven't discarded even in our stage of knowledge.
And that is religion, you are disregarding the immense power of propaganda, child indoctrination and management of public perception, this is what has been keeping religion dogma alive for our entire history, it is, as you very well know, irrational, stupid and a mean to control the masses, but because it's propaganda works so well and it's so influential in defining peoples perception, people continue to believe in it, it is exactly the same with the government, people have been systematically driven to believe in the state, and when you have a rational argument about why is the state wrong, corrupt and inefficient, people will respond with irrational responses constructed out of belief!
Which is to an extent what you're doing, you're one of the smartest and most critic members of this forum, but yet, because you have been lead to belief in the state as the only solution to organize society, you are not responding to the argument critically, you are rather using counter arguments very much in the sense that religious people use to make ridicule of any atheistic argument!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 16:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | Also, you must be able to see that your form of anarchy cannot coincide with any other type of world order. You cannot have a state with a government and then a blank spot on the map where there is "here be dragons" anarchy. |
But again, you are wrong, land would still be there, it would be part of a country, much in the sense that it is today, the only difference is that it wouldn't be regulated by a centralized forum, but rather by the people which directly influences!
Land would not be owned, all virgin land would have no owner, what defines that you own a land is the fact that you applied your work and resources on that land, namely building a village, a road, a city, or whatever.
Only then a certain land would be owned by a community or single person, depending on if the resources invested on that land were from private or public funding.
It is in fact very easy to understand!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronhrin
Banned
Posts: 6428
Location: Paradigms are changeable, reality is absolute.
|
| Posted: Sun, 19th Sep 2010 16:17 Post subject: |
|
|
And only a small comment on why hasn't Anarchy naturally evolved, several studies have been made towards this end and no conclusive answer was ever found, the matter of the fact is that just because we don't fully understand the mechanics of past civilizations, doesn't carry any influence in modern civilization.
If we followed your line of reasoning, then we would go back to a Monarchic system, which certainly you will agree that is much more flawed and inhumane than current structure!
We can design a society without centralized power that repeals naturally any attempt of coercion or singular authority, it works on the Internet, it will work on the real world.
This is factual and logical, we can question ourselves about the nature of our past but this has nothing to do with our future.
To make decisions based on a hypothetical past that we don't understand is what religion does, not rational intelligent people such as ourselves!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
