Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Why anarcism works

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nosoup4crr, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. nosoup4crr

    nosoup4crr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Why anarcism works

    Alright...so, i'm sitting in my philisophical foundations of democracy class...and my professor states that for us to even have such a class, we have to kill any base for anarchy...because if anarchy truly works...then there's no need for government...so he stated the anarchist's argument. check with me.

    Part 1:

    We have the right to disobey a bad/evil government.

    Not hard to believe, right? I think we should all agree that we have the right to fight a government that is, in nature, bad.

    Part 2:

    All governenments are coercive.(That is to say they shape you in a direciton of general consent...i.e. you go to school at age 5, because education is important...that's the "good" kind of coercion...there are bad kinds as well.)

    Alright...this should be agreed on as well. Governments do have laws that are coercive and use force(physical, economic, mental) in order to coerce your actions.

    Part 3:

    Coercion is "intrinsically" bad.

    The definition he gave for intrinsically bad is: if something is intrinsically bad, we wouldn't do it for the sake of doing it. That is to say if we could have our children all be educated in calculus by the age of 11, we woudln't force them into school...we would let them learn calculus by alternate means. or, also for example...If there were a way to rid the society of crime, why would we use Prison(coercion) in order to stop it. we wouldn't. therefore, i can't see how you can say that coercion is intrinsically good.

    So...according to transitive properties...coercion is bad...all governments practice coercions, and are therefore bad...and we have no obligation to follow a bad government.

    Reactions?
     
  2. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My reaction is that your professor is full of ****. Coersion, even "bad" coersion, is often necessary. Humans are by and large social animals but inherently aggressive as a defensive posture. We need a certain level of coersion to keep us getting along and working towards advantages for the species. You've got to step on some toes to keep everyone working together, sometimes. Not everyone can get what they want. Even wolf packs have coersion. All pack animals do.
     
  3. Dredd

    Dredd D3 Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,140
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    134
    I'll offer a brief thought before I bow out of this thread.

    All governments practice coercion but that is not all they practice. The benefits of an ordered society tend to outweigh the negatives.

    Your final statement ...

    ... would only hold true under the following conditions:

    1.) The government only practiced coercion.
    2.) The state of world were truly utopian (in which case such a government would not be allowed to exist, and is therefore null).

    This is not a very scientific nor philosophical observation at all -- just a couple knee-jerk thoughts. I'm a terrible debater. :D
     
  4. nosoup4crr

    nosoup4crr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    first off...he doesn't back anarchy, haha...he gave arguments for why it doesn't work...but...according to the anarchist's argument...it doesn't matter that coercion is necessary, under the statement that coercion is, in fact, intrinsically bad, and you can therefore fight a government that practices it. Secondly, I don't understand why you say that the government would have to practice only corruption...that's like saying a boxer who kicks someone in the groin only half the time is a good boxer. According to their argument, and the transitive principle, as long as they practice coercion, the government is bad...Don't get me wrong, either...I don't back anarchy, haha. I just thought that the argument was interesting.
     
  5. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok, well it's good to know that your prof isn't backing such an absurdity. But he said that the gov't would only practice coersion, not corruption. Anarchists seem to live in a fantasy world where people can get along without rules and a higher body to tell them what to do. It just isn't reality. While it's unfortunate that coersion is necessary to govern the human race, it hardly makes governments bad. The alternative would be much worse. Sounds to me like anarchists are trying to justify their skewed political ideologies with some very wobbly and illogical reasoning.

    Edit: Two people in love influence each other with a hell of a lot of coersion, even though it is usually with good-intentions or unconscious. By their definition, love is inherently bad.
     
  6. Dredd

    Dredd D3 Off Topic Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,140
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    134
    I guess I sort of got lost with how "intrinsically bad" is defined in this case.

    The argument is also difficult to work with in my opinion. It's far too narrow and orderly. My response tried to fit into that framework and I agree it's flawed. But so is the argument.
     
  7. nosoup4crr

    nosoup4crr IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    well...when fighting a losing battle, wouldn't you choose a narrow field of legitimacy? The fact is, if we can't prove them wrong on those basises(bases?), then they ahve a case for why anarchism IS legitimate. However, anakha got the exact argument of most democratic theorists. You first have to prove that anarchism works, before you can have it replace a government...and the fact is that it doesn't work. The only place that anarchism has ever been seen to work is in populations where all have homogenous agendas...like cults or greatful dead concerts...haha...same thing...just kidding...or am i? heh...nah...just kidding...or am--anyway. I did think that this was interesting. for about 2 and a half minutes, i was gonna pick up shop, and move to salk lake city...the cult was calling me. sorry if i've offended any mormans...or am i?
     
  8. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to mention people automatically follow leaders. You'd have anarchy for a couple of days and then people would start factioning off again. Soon you'd have a bunch of smaller governments.
     
  9. Ash Housewares

    Ash Housewares IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    21,802
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    467
    you lost me
     
  10. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You missed the turn off and didn't go across the Logic Suspension bridge.
     
  11. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    You are a big supporter of the Girls = Evil equation arent you.

    Anarchy is the biggest load of optimistic crap I have ever heard. Like Anika1 said, it would only last until the first strong guy steals your bicycle.
     
  12. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I dunno about him, but I always was. :lol:
     
  13. Underseer

    Underseer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Exactly. With anarchy, you are trading the coercion of the government for coercion of individuals, and the coercion of individuals will eventually produce more "bad" coercion than governmental coercion because human beings are inherently selfish.

    The only way to stop the big strong guy from stealing your bicycle (or more likely your food) is to band together, at which point you're back to having "coercive" political structures.

    So why bring about all the death and destruction required to implement anarchy if the result will be ending up exactly where we started? Anarchy isn't overly optimistic, it's downright bloodthirsty. Anyone who says otherwise probably believes he can overpower you and take your food.
     
  14. Geeno

    Geeno IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    346
    The day we have anarchy, Im comin after you.
     
  15. Drosselmeier

    Drosselmeier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Not many anarchists want to abolish society. That is a misconception.

    Anarchists usually push for a revamping of the political structure of society into a totally direct democracy, where desicions are made at as low a level as possible. Decisions about the workplace or neighbourhood are made in the workplace/neighbourhood, decisions which affect the city are made in the city, et cetera. A bottom-up democracy.

    It´s got some natural connections to syndicalism.

    Anarchism simply means that you have no ruler, be it dictator or ruling class of merchants, philosophers, ideolouges or beurocrats. This does not mean that there is no government. Anarchists want to see a form of government with wide, direct participation where everyone is directly engaged in the decisionmaking affecting them.

    There would still be coercion in an anarchy but the coercion would come from people less removed from you. A lot of anarchists do claim that their system would not lead to coercion but this should probably be read no more coercion than absolutely nessecary. Coercion (Anakha already touched on this point) is present everywhere and everytime humans interact. There are different kinds and degrees of coercion though. Anarchists just draw the line differently.
     
  16. Underseer

    Underseer IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Anarchists do condone the eradication of society whether they mean to or not, because that would be the inevitable result of their stated desires.

    As for the rest of your statement, what you're talking about there is not anarchy. A very small government is still a government.
     
  17. Dark Knight

    Dark Knight IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Slightly OT - I saw an ironic sticker being posted on lampposts by some kind of local anarchists society

    [WHY NOT HANG A FACIST FROM THIS LAMP POST?]


    ....


    :rolleyes: :bonk:
     
  18. LunarSolaris

    LunarSolaris IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,427
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    That was a good point to be raised Dross... and good to shed a bit more light on the subject in the way that you did.

    The only argument that I would have against it though, is a point that has already been raised - basically, that in a society without a central government, it would still tend to digress to factions and smaller governments. By the argument you raised, each of these smaller community groups would still have a leader (if I understood you correctly). If this were the case, then there would still be leadership by one person (or a small group of people). In essence... it would be carried out in this fashion to the ultimate break-down of the whole thing.

    Anarchy doesn't work because it ultimately advocates for the break-down of organized control... and as Anookha pointed out, human beings work best with at least some forms of organized control.
     
  19. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    the error lies in labeling government as bad due to the common use of coersion (which is also never proven to be bad since they redefine bad as anything not inherantly good)

    consider, speech produces no inherant good. rather the result of some speech is good (communication) thus since speech is not inherantly good it should be rebelled against
     
  20. Anyee

    Anyee IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see that you and your professor haven't taken a good long look at John Locke's second treatise on government. You should.
     

Share This Page