• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Not Anarchy?

CNT-FAI Radical

CNT-FAI Radical

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
82
Reaction score
10
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Why Not Abolish the Government?

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
Why Not Abolish the Government?

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?
Click to expand...

That one is easy. Anarchy is an inefficient way for society to order itself.
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
Why Not Abolish the Government?

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?
Click to expand...

The problem with anarchy is instating it. Who decides when anarchy is established? Who will represent "the people?" Why do you think there will be no power struggle in an anarchy? In fact, it will probably be 100X worse. Just look at any book or movie or TV Show that centers around Anarchy-like situations. There is usually this one crazy guy who has all the weapons, power, and money! How is that in anyway better than what we have now? Please explain.

Also since your second post is promoting anarchy, I highly doubt you'll last long here. This after all, is a community! :wink:
 
Last edited:
You could argue that we have had thousands of years to show that government is a failure. I'm an anarchist because experience shows that government doesn't work. Anyway, I don't support one system for all people. People want different things and there is no way to form a system without it being a tyranny for someone. Majorities don't change any of the fundamental failures of all reaching power structures, and in fact, just grow the size of those who's will is imposed on others.
 
I see those two you cited didn't last very long.

For many on this site, majority rule is forbidden. It's all about the weakest and the weirdest.
 
Henrin said:
You could argue that we have had thousands of years to show that government is a failure. I'm an anarchist because experience shows that government doesn't work. Anyway, I don't support one system for all people. People want different things and there is no way to form a system without it being a tyranny for someone. Majorities don't change any of the fundamental failures of all reaching power structures, and in fact, just grow the size of those who's will is imposed on others.
Click to expand...

this is true, however the founders sought to divide power by making the government republican....which is the best form of government there ever was, .....today there are no republican forms of government in the world.

America has moved itself away from republican to democratic government, because most of the people do not know what it really is and how vile it is, because " a democratic form of government is always at war with individual liberty"

those that advocate a democratic form of government are collectivist, and want to control people.

Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." - Vladimir Lenin
 
If it weren't for the fact that nobody would ever let such a system take place, I'd be an anarchist. Some would say I am one anyway, in principle, seeing that ideally, I shrug off capitalism, statism, and other unilateral/vertical power structures as being grossly inefficient and immoral. But I don't see the super wealthy or the politicians they buy giving up their power, nor do I see the people as being viligant or educated enough to either instate anarchism or even maintain it once instated.

Anarchism is a beautiful philosophy. One that has been perverted throughout time by "anarcho"-capitalists, punk rockers, governments, and terrorists. But it is a philosophy for the optimistic. While I am optimistic about the future, I tend to be very pragmatic. Which is why I consider myself more of a liberal-libertarian hybrid than an anarchist. Perhaps, sometime in the future, when the corporate ruling class loses it's power, anarchism can be up for discussion. But for now I consider it way too far for it to be considered anything other than a dream. We have to work in the now.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
That one is easy. Anarchy is an inefficient way for society to order itself.
Click to expand...

Indeed, any democratizing of society has this criticism. If efficiency and expediency were the only virtues of political philosophy, then wouldn't that mean that Absolutism and Monarchy are the perfect political systems?
 
ModerateGOP said:
Also since your second post is promoting anarchy, I highly doubt you'll last long here. This after all, is a community! :wink:
Click to expand...

Why not? This forum welcomes people from across the spectrum, and you'd be surprised how many anarchists actually populate this place.
 
Why Not Anarchy?
Click to expand...

because government is better than the regional warlords and highwaymen that emerge in its absence.

/thread
 
TeleKat said:
If it weren't for the fact that nobody would ever let such a system take place, I'd be an anarchist. Some would say I am one anyway, in principle, seeing that ideally, I shrug off capitalism, statism, and other unilateral/vertical power structures as being grossly inefficient and immoral. But I don't see the super wealthy or the politicians they buy giving up their power, nor do I see the people as being viligant or educated enough to either instate anarchism or even maintain it once instated.

Anarchism is a beautiful philosophy. One that has been perverted throughout time by "anarcho"-capitalists, punk rockers, governments, and terrorists. But it is a philosophy for the optimistic. While I am optimistic about the future, I tend to be very pragmatic. Which is why I consider myself more of a liberal-libertarian hybrid than an anarchist. Perhaps, sometime in the future, when the corporate ruling class loses it's power, anarchism can be up for discussion. But for now I consider it way too far for it to be considered anything other than a dream. We have to work in the now.
Click to expand...

I contend that anarcho-capitalism will be a far superior system in the future than it would be today due to technological advancements that will decrease the need for labor.
 
Helix said:
because government is better than the regional warlords and highwaymen that emerge in its absence.

/thread
Click to expand...

Exactly. There will always be some concentration of power. I'd rather it be in the form of a democratic government than pretty much any alternative.
 
TeleKat said:
Why not? This forum welcomes people from across the spectrum, and you'd be surprised how many anarchists actually populate this place.
Click to expand...

No I'm not surprised, they don't hide themselves well. I just know what to expect from the OP now and most likely for however long he lasts here. Which I predict will be shortly. He's only made three posts and all about anarchy.
 
Helix said:
because government is better than the regional warlords and highwaymen that emerge in its absence.

/thread
Click to expand...

Isn't government both a warlord and a highwaymen?
 
Paschendale said:
Exactly. There will always be some concentration of power. I'd rather it be in the form of a democratic government than pretty much any alternative.
Click to expand...

Why? Nations are nothing but regional warlords and highwaymen.
 
ModerateGOP said:
The problem with anarchy is instating it. Who decides when anarchy is established? Who will represent "the people?" Why do you think there will be no power struggle in an anarchy? In fact, it will probably be 100X worse.
Click to expand...

We think that government should be limited today and that people have a right to revolt if the state commits an injustice. That, in itself, is the power struggle that we have today. But if there was an equality in power positions, if each person participated in voluntary associations formed for cultural or social or industrially or scientific reasons, then the power struggle could never be dominated by any single powerful organization that ruled all. There's too much diversity in the human character to allow any such participation as totally universal.

ModerateGOP said:
Just look at any book or movie or TV Show that centers around Anarchy-like situations. There is usually this one crazy guy who has all the weapons, power, and money! How is that in anyway better than what we have now? Please explain.
Click to expand...

You mean like "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway or "Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell? (Both of which were focused on the Spanish Anarchists in the 1930's.) And I don't think movies or TV are good sources to cite, unless you happen to be talking about Stanley Kubrick (Clockwork Orange) or Terry Gilliam (Brazil).

ModerateGOP said:
Also since your second post is promoting anarchy, I highly doubt you'll last long here. This after all, is a community! :wink:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the warm welcome. ;) If you noticed, my argument begins with "Everyone makes up society," so I'm not certain why you doubt the community-centered nature of Anarchism. http://www.brassicanigra.org/IMG/jpg/ungdom.jpg
 
Henrin said:
Isn't government both a warlord and a highwaymen?
Click to expand...

no. warlords and highwaymen are not democratically elected representatives.

but it's satisfying to think of government in hyperbolic, inflammatory terms if you're a libertarian. i remember.
 
joG said:
That one is easy. Anarchy is an inefficient way for society to order itself.
Click to expand...

ModerateGOP said:
The problem with anarchy is instating it. Who decides when anarchy is established? ... Also since your second post is promoting anarchy, I highly doubt you'll last long here. This after all, is a community! :wink:
Click to expand...

I find that most people mistakenly associate anarchy with chaos; the two are not synonyms. Anarchy is simply without government.

If you would take a moment to consider your life, you will quickly discover that the vast majority of our lives are spent under anarchy. Take this forum, for example. Nobody tells you which threads to read or which to avoid, on which threads to respond, how to respond, etc. There are no laws governing which profession you choose, which hobbies with which you occupy your time, who you select as your partner (though there is an effort by government to restrict this). There are no government agents telling you which products to purchase at the grocery store, which designs of clothes to purchase, how to dress yourself, or when to wake up in the morning.

I think you get the idea. Easily 99 percent of our lives are conducted through free will constrained only be our desires to be accepted within society. And this is the key: social pressures and mores are fully compatible with anarchy. We mostly get along in society (and forums such as this) because we have an innate desire to be accepted within society; not because we are told to do so by a government agent.

I hate to break it to you, but we all live in an anarchic society occasionally broken by moments of government intrusion.
 
Paschendale said:
Exactly. There will always be some concentration of power. I'd rather it be in the form of a democratic government than pretty much any alternative.
Click to expand...

and you advocate for a vile and terrible form of government, which does not respect individual liberty.
 
Helix said:
no. warlords and highwaymen are not democratically elected representatives.


but it's satisfying to think of government in hyperbolic, inflammatory terms if you're a libertarian. i remember.
Click to expand...

I was unaware I voted for government to exist. I thought government just said, look, you can vote for who kicks your ass.
 
Philosophically I am an anarchist. Practically, I realize Humanity is not evolved enough yet to pull it off. Maybe one day in the far distant future. In the meantime I would like us to focus on shrinking the size and reach of governments to the point that direct democracy is feasible. Direct democracy is certainly not feasible when you have governments the size of the US or even the size of our states. A world of city states could pull off direct democracy, I think. Then cities could work together in various loose federations to fulfill tasks too large for individual cities. And with open borders cities could freely compete for residents. That's a pipe dream too, I suppose. But the current system of "representatives" is a joke.
 
ernst barkmann said:
those that advocate a democratic form of government are collectivist, and want to control people.
Click to expand...

There's too much jargon and ambiguity in some of your word choices. Democracy can mean anything, just like Republican or Socialism. "...the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way." ~ Orwell, George Orwell: Politics and the English Language
 
CNT-FAI Radical said:
Why Not Abolish the Government?
Click to expand...

Everyone makes up society, which makes it logical for everyone to have a voice in society, but even Democratic governments have abuses and scandals. So it's not enough just to have Democracy, but you need limited powers. And sometimes limiting the government's powers isn't even enough, and you have to guarantee that everyone has a right to revolt whenever they are being oppressed. But revolting and revolution are blood and full of conflict and suffering and the general disruption of society. Why not go further in the belief of limiting power and the right to revolt, and declare that any government is unjust because it places the participants on unequal footing that provides the powerful with a means to exploit the weak.

Scientific societies and labor unions generally have anarchy as an internal political system, even if it's called by the title "Delegation." In those cases, the only difference between government and anarchy is that no elected delegate can take a decision without a majority vote and any delegate can be removed by a no-confidence vote. And Anarchist societies of the past have been utopias compared to anything else around at that time. List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, why not end government?
Click to expand...



Take a look at Somalia. :roll:
 
Henrin said:
I contend that anarcho-capitalism will be a far superior system in the future than it would be today due to technological advancements that will decrease the need for labor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only once the need for labor is eliminated would anarcho-capitalism be feasible. Otherwise there would be no government to stop the workers from taking over the means of production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom