Anarchism Discussion Thread

You know what happens when there's the power vacuum of true anarchy? African warlords.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Anarchy = Whatever happens in Northern/Mid. Africa.

Which equals death to a lot of people.

people aren't morally good enough for true anarchy to work

Anarchy doesn't and will never work.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

What if we are not in Africa?

American warlords, European warlords, Russian warlords...

Warlords for everyone.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Do what I want, fuck your definitions.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

It would work and has worked in the past.

It would just "work" terribly.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Nope.

ur dumb

shut up fgt

I don't true anarchism will ever succeed. People always look for others to lead them and thus it turns into a simple and archaic form of government, which can't exist for anarchy to work. Anarchy means everybody has to rely on each other equally and provide for themselves. Human nature at this time can't work like that

It's also why true communism will never work as communism doesn't rely on government

People ultimately need some sort of order and rules to abide by and that's the very sad truth about it all. Maybe one day it will be different though

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

People in general can't be trusted with that kind of system.

Yeah, people aren't morally good enough for true anarchy to work. Like DAS said, you get Africa when you have true anarchy.

This is wrong for a few reasons.

First of all, we can't really talk about human nature (as shown in your sweeping generalization of what "people" are) because what we see today isn't what people are naturally prone to do. We have been born and molded by unnatural conditions surrounding us, as seen in the existence of a state. To even take a guess as to what human nature would be, you'd have to look at nature and see how plants an animals cooperate without the existence of government.

Second, our governments exist through physical and mental violence and we've been exposed to this violence since the day we were born. Our lack of "moral good" is the result of our existence being an exchange of violence to get what we want. The state has prevented us from cooperation and limited our mentalities to competition.

Third, to put it as politely as I can, Africa might be the worst example as to why anarchism cannot work. Africa is the result of foreign colonists drawing arbitrary lines in the continent without any respect towards the location of different tribes. If we had let each tribe control their own devoted piece of land, the continent would have succumbed to the violent power vacuum it is today.

This is wrong for a few reasons.

First of all, we can't really talk about human nature (as shown in your sweeping generalization of what "people" are) because what we see today isn't what people are naturally prone to do. We have been born and molded by unnatural conditions surrounding us, as seen in the existence of a state. To even take a guess as to what human nature would be, you'd have to look at nature and see how plants an animals cooperate without the existence of government.

Second, our governments exist through physical and mental violence and we've been exposed to this violence since the day we were born. Our lack of "moral good" is the result of our existence being an exchange of violence to get what we want. The state has prevented us from cooperation and limited our mentalities to competition.

Third, to put it as politely as I can, Africa might be the worst example as to why anarchism cannot work. Africa is the result of foreign colonists drawing arbitrary lines in the continent without any respect towards the location of different tribes. If we had let each tribe control their own devoted piece of land, the continent would have succumbed to the violent power vacuum it is today.

Even the examples of Anarchism working are woefully deplorable. For example, Catalonia didn't work out so well; non-Anarchists were persecuted mercilessly and economic production fell during, indicating a distinct lack of social and economic efficiency. And yes, we absolutely CAN talk about human nature, given our understanding of it. People aren't totally shaped by environment, and it'd be fallacious to try and claim so. Scientists generally agree that violence is inherent to human contact, and the philosophical argument between Hobbes and Rousseau has been largely won by the former. If you want to talk nature, then you have to have a specific or non-specific definition about what is natural, and the non-specific definition works best. A State IS absolutely natural, otherwise it wouldn't have evolved in the first place - even if it did come about through largely religious and economic reasons a long time ago, it still remains demonstrably necessary.

If you want to risk a specific definition of human nature, then you simply must be a Primitivist when you do it. The technology, economics and sociological factors have probably had a larger impact, combined, on how we act in comparison to the State. But not just on a consequentialist basis, on a philosophical one too; claims of moral and immoral practice are meaningless to me, and probably should be as equally meaningless to anybody wanting a serious discussion.

The main thing that converted me from Anarchism, however, was probably a quote by Professor Hare - the world's leading expert in psychopaths - who stated that: "If we rely on the inherent goodness of men then we are doomed".

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

ANARCHY! ANARCHY! RAAA...

Wait you just want to discuss anarchy..? Aw man.