Comment

Comment by Keith on December 6, 2010 at 9:13am

"Keith: What part of an anarchist ideology implies that people are always good?"

Well, my understanding is, and I think it is a fairly decent understanding, that Libertarian/Anarchist ideology says that a business has the right to do whatever it likes, (deny people service based on color? Religion perhaps?) And, people will decide as to whether they give that particualr business service.

Also, if you would not like a nation state, or government, or a judicial system to enforce contractual agreements and property rights (which we know Libertarians love) then you are relying on the good of people. You are trusting they will not blow your head off with a shot gun and take your car. Or whatever they want. The nation state, government, police and courts protect people and property rights that are essential to a functioning society.

This particular system exploits people. Quite frankly.And relys on survival of the fittest. And, that is not the human experience.

"What part of anarchist ideology says that anarchists are not a part of society?"

Something a lot of Libertarians have a problem with is something called compromise. I am glad to hear you imply you are part of a society. However, without a nation state, government, judical system, and police force, it becomes every man for himself, and that is contrary to society. Being a member of society comes responsibilites and compromises. That means giving up some freedoms for protection. Unfortunately, for Libertarians, it means that no, you cannot do what you want, when you want, how you want. And, yes, you can be stopped.

"If people are all truly as bad as you say, we should not have a government at all. Your conclusion, that we must have a "nation state," does not follow with your assumption that people cannot cooperate."

You can pretend - like most Libertarians/Anarchists do - that everyone is perfect and good natured and a decent human being. Others who live in reality know that is not true. People need to be protected from people.

In Connecticut, a man was beaten, his daughters, beaten, raped and murdered. His wife raped and murdred. This is what happens in the real world. What happens in a Libertarian/Anarchist world? A gang of vigilantes go and murder the two men?

Or, how about what happen in the South since Reconstruction to the late 60s. People are denied service based on their color. People are treated as second class citizens, based on ignorance, hatred, and intolernace.

In both of these cases, the nation state, the government, and the judicial system, police force are needed to protect these individuals. That is what the reality of a situation is.

I don't think people are as perfect as you and I.

And, as for my conclusion that a nation state does not follow with my assumption that people cannot co-operate, I say, people cannot co-operate. And, they need to be forced to do so. Quite honestly. This is where that pesky word "compromise" comes into play. People need to be forced to put away their ignorance, and intolerance in order for a society to function properly. And, the only tool that can do that is a nation state, government, judicial system and police force. Along with penalties for doing so. So, it seems my conclusion and assumption are correct.

"Anarchists are the one group most concerned with an individual's relationship to his society."

Explain please.

Comment by Rev Hellbound Alleee on December 6, 2010 at 4:54am

Keith: What part of an anarchist ideology implies that people are always good?

What part of anarchist ideology says that anarchists are not a part of society?

Anarchists are the one group most concerned with an individual's relationship to his society.

If people are all truly as bad as you say, we should not have a government at all. Your conclusion, that we must have a "nation state," does not follow with your assumption that people cannot cooperate. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Unless the nation state is made of aliens or robots and not the people you just said were incapable of thinking of others before themselves. Unless the nation state is not chosen by the people who cannot think for others besides themselves.

How about you? Are you incapable of not defrauding or harming others? Or are you just talking about me?

I suggest you look at this shitload of societies that have survived quite well without a government. (And remember: all systems fail, until one doesn't. Which one involves the least force?)

http://flag.blackened.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=75489

Comment by Keith on December 5, 2010 at 5:26pm

As much as Libertarians and Anarchists would like to pretend they are not part of a society - they are.

The nation state is required for the organization of society. And government is the means to organize. The problem with Libertarian ideology is, Libertarian ideology assumes everyone is good and decent, and will always act respectfully towards each other and due to this goodwill can be achieved. However, in the real world, people are not goodwilled and do not act respectfully towards others. This is where the role of government and the nation state come into play.

People need to be protected from people. That is fact.

And another aspect we could say is, the nation state, government and courts/legal system protect property rights. Without a means to protect property rights or contractual agreements, everything is up for grabs and the ultimate result - in my opnion - of a Libertarian/Anarchist society is chaos and survival of the fittest.

That above scenario is the complete antithesis of the human experience. And of reality.

Comment by Rev Hellbound Alleee on December 5, 2010 at 5:00pm

So why do we require a government?

Comment by Keith on December 5, 2010 at 3:31pm

What? English please.

Comment by o on December 5, 2010 at 2:47pm

Your wall of text just critted me for 18k dude.

Comment by Keith on December 5, 2010 at 12:52pm

What's wrong with a little healthy debate?

"When we consider either the history of opinion, or the ordinary conduct of human life, to what is it to be ascribed that the one and the other are no worse than they are? Not certainly to the inherent force of the human understanding; for, on any matter not self-evident, there are ninety-nine persons totally incapable of judging of it, for one who is capable; and the capacity of the hundredth person is only comparative; for the majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify. Why is it, then, that there is on the whole a preponderance among mankind of rational opinions and rational conduct? If there really is this preponderance--which there must be, unless human affairs are, and have always been, in an almost desperate state--it is owing to a quality of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man, either as an intellectual or as a moral being, namely, that his errors are corrigible. He is capable of rectifying his mistakes by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter--he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process." ~ On Liberty, John Stuart Mill.

Libertarianism/Anarchy is the complete antithesis to the human experience.

I am not here to be an ass. I like debating. Discussing things. And, I am sure, some of you are rather intelligent.

Comment by o on December 4, 2010 at 10:51pm

Why join a group for Anarchist Atheists if you aren't one Keith? Do you join meat eating groups to discuss your vegetarianism?

Comment by Keith on December 4, 2010 at 5:10pm

I joined this group. Even though I disgaree with it. Oh, I am not too fond of Capitalism. And, I am a Socialist. However, anarchy is nonsense.

Comment by Matthew Newman on October 31, 2010 at 3:54pm

Yeah, I know... but I was hoping my sheer magnetism would attract other patrons.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page