Need some anarchist arguments for class tomorrow

[socialize_me]

Hokay so we're going to be criticizing how anarchism isn't viable in society, and since I am unread on the views of anarchism, does anyone here have some good counter-arguments?? Like who would be the authority in anarchism if someone did something wrong (like murder, theft, rape, etc.) and who would have judiciary power, or if even these powers would exist. How would conflicts be resolved? How would contracts be enforced without an enforcer?

Basically, the typical questions you'd have about anarchism.

[Conza88]

I'm weary of giving someone who isn't convinced of the argument, the ammunition to appear to do so. You're just going to fail to counter act any rebuttals they thrown at you.

Regardless, this may help. Point out there are differences in anarchism. Traditional anarchists are socialists. Thus you see violence, destruction of property etc. (LOL, would love to see reaction on that one from the asswhipe statists in the class).

Hmm... I could go on, but I don't want to damage the good name of anarcho-capitalism, with someone not being able to give a sound defence of it.

Alternatively: print this entire site. (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)

[socialize_me]

I'm weary of giving someone who isn't convinced of the argument, the ammunition to appear to do so. You're just going to fail to counter act any rebuttals they thrown at you.

Regardless, this may help. Point out there are differences in anarchism. Traditional anarchists are socialists. Thus you see violence, destruction of property etc. (LOL, would love to see reaction on that one from the asswhipe statists in the class).

Hmm... I could go on, but I don't want to damage the good name of anarcho-capitalism, with someone not being able to give a sound defence of it.

Alternatively: print this entire site. (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)

Well of course I'll fail and countering anything someone doesn't have the opinion of, just as you have failed time and time again trying to convince communists you come across. The fact that my arguments don't sway you is the same issue you find when your arguments don't sway me. A serial killer would think you're the crazy one for not appreciating his work and would say you "failed in your rebuttals" to convince him otherwise. Ultimately it's arrogance at the source. We all got it--it's natural...we're human. Just as ethnocentrics find them to be the superior breed, you find yourself the superior intellect. Considering we have 6+ billion people in the world, I doubt you're the only one who thinks he has the answers.

No system works. Anything designed by humans is gradually destroyed, decays, and withers. Show me one thing that has survived that was created by humans. One.

[socialize_me]

I also want to make the point that...

who would stop the fundamentalists?? Could you imagine what would happen in a state-less society where these psychos are running around in private mobs lynching gays, shooting adulterers, and slaughtering other religions? I mean, I have yet to hear ONE legitimate argument that is able to address this problem. The psychos would run around killing people and without someone to throw them in jail, what you would have is vigilante justice. Then society becomes nothing more than just a retaliatory culture where the chaos just builds and builds from a minor incident. I push you for no reason, you push me back harder, I punch you, the fight is on. Your friends jump in and mine do too, and a gun is pulled. The fight breaks up, a person lies dead, and your friends vow revenge. They kill the murderer, and the dead murderer has friends that then go after you. The process continues until people decide to stop retaliating.

Am I wrong? Besides calling me a "socialist", how the fuck am I wrong about that? Have you ever been in a fight and seen how things go? Yeah..

Listen, I agree with you on many things. I do understand how the State has killed its own and that genocide, war, etc. would not exist without the State existing, but the alternative to me looks not much better where I have to take responsibility for myself in the sense that goes beyond personal responsibility--like having to carry a gun on me at all times in case I come across someone who killed his family and isn't locked up because, well, the State doesn't exist to do so.

Either system has a high level of fear instilled in it. I either fear the State or I fear a mob breaking into my house because I might be different.

[sdczen]

You can start by explaining the real definition of Anarchy. Many people will understand Anarchy to be violent mobs running amok through the streets. This is simply not the case.

Anarchy is the absence of government. This does not mean that because there is no government that there will be mass killings or violence. In fact most people today behave cordially without thinking of the 'laws' they may be breaking. There are always bad seeds, but government does not stop that.

You could also mention Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchism and panarchy.

[Danke]

I'm weary of giving someone who isn't convinced of the argument, the ammunition to appear to do so. You're just going to fail to counter act any rebuttals they thrown at you.

Regardless, this may help. Point out there are differences in anarchism. Traditional anarchists are socialists. Thus you see violence, destruction of property etc. (LOL, would love to see reaction on that one from the asswhipe statists in the class).

Hmm... I could go on, but I don't want to damage the good name of anarcho-capitalism, with someone not being able to give a sound defence of it.

Alternatively: print this entire site. (http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html)




Well of course I'll fail and countering anything someone doesn't have the opinion of, just as you have failed time and time again trying to convince communists you come across. The fact that my arguments don't sway you is the same issue you find when your arguments don't sway me. A serial killer would think you're the crazy one for not appreciating his work and would say you "failed in your rebuttals" to convince him otherwise. Ultimately it's arrogance at the source. We all got it--it's natural...we're human. Just as ethnocentrics find them to be the superior breed, you find yourself the superior intellect. Considering we have 6+ billion people in the world, I doubt you're the only one who thinks he has the answers.

No system works. Anything designed by humans is gradually destroyed, decays, and withers. Show me one thing that has survived that was created by humans. One.

He offered you a hand and you totally misconstrued the point he was trying to make and failed to follow what he was saying. Reread it. And if you still come to the same conclusion, oh well.

[socialize_me]

You can start by explaining the real definition of Anarchy. Many people will understand Anarchy to be violent mobs running amok through the streets. This is simply not the case.

Anarchy is the absence of government. This does not mean that because there is no government that there will be mass killings or violence. In fact most people today behave cordially without thinking of the 'laws' they may be breaking. There are always bad seeds, but government does not stop that.

You could also mention Anarcho-capitalism, Minarchism and panarchy.

Yeah, I understand many evils exist regardless of government or not, but some of these Christian fundamentalists scare me. They aren't a very large group of people, but they can certainly organize and easily form an army of themselves. With a private military boasting tens of thousands of these psychos, you ultimately have a chaotic scenario where, instead of having the government do the shooting, you have psychos driven by their own bloodlust slaughtering nonbelievers.

With anarchy, you ultimately will have people trying to formulate some sort of government to control others. You can't get rid of it, so anarchy is essentially impossible. There will always be an effort to create a following, and they have always been successful. When 10,000 people from Nebraska support one person and 10,000 Californians support one person and they clash, you essentially have vigilante war. Factions will exist and with factions, you basically have border-less States where they still wage war.

Anarchism is impossible. The second you abolish all government, you have many ambitious individuals trying to organize a following. People have been seeking world domination for a very long time. It's true we all want to be free and the State wants to control things, but we don't understand that WE want to be the State. WE want control. WE are ambitious. These individuals would be unrestrained and capable to organize and march onto unleashing chaos on bystanders.

This would happen.

[socialize_me]

He offered you a hand and you totally misconstrued the point he was trying to make and failed to follow what he was saying. Reread it. And if you still come to the same conclusion, oh well.

No, considering you don't understand the context and the previous debates, he wasn't being friendly. The guy doesn't drop grudges unlike me. If I've debated with someone, I don't make it a point to remind them of how "stupid" (or my perception of their arguments) they were. Conza is just one of the many who can't drop what happened two weeks ago and has to regurgitate it over and over.

I'm not saying I forget all debates, it's just find it pointless to keep bringing the same shit up when all it does is create agitation. I don't go out of my way to reply to Conza's threads to rehash old quarrels. If he was trying to help out, he could've cut out the fluff and just given me the link. Did he? Nahh...had several sentences of pointless discussion.

[heavenlyboy34]

OP,

To borrow a quote from Butler Shaeffer-

" Over time, the advantages derived from this system (the State) have a sufficient consistency to lead us to the conclusion that our well-being is dependent upon it. Those who manage the organization find it in their self-interests to propagate this belief so that we will become dependent upon its permanency. Like a sculptor working with clay, institutions take over the direction of our minds, twisting, squeezing, and pounding upon them until we have embraced a mindset conducive to their interests. Once this has been accomplished, we find it easy to subvert our will and sense of purpose to the collective. The organization ceases being a mere tool of mutual convenience, and becomes an end in itself. Our lives become “institutionalized,” and we regard it as fanciful to imagine ourselves living in any other way than as constituent parts of a machine that transcends our individual sense. " (from "Identifying with The State" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer159.html))

[sdczen]

Yeah, I understand many evils exist regardless of government or not, but some of these Christian fundamentalists scare me. They aren't a very large group of people, but they can certainly organize and easily form an army of themselves. With a private military boasting tens of thousands of these psychos, you ultimately have a chaotic scenario where, instead of having the government do the shooting, you have psychos driven by their own bloodlust slaughtering nonbelievers.

With anarchy, you ultimately will have people trying to formulate some sort of government to control others. You can't get rid of it, so anarchy is essentially impossible. There will always be an effort to create a following, and they have always been successful. When 10,000 people from Nebraska support one person and 10,000 Californians support one person and they clash, you essentially have vigilante war. Factions will exist and with factions, you basically have border-less States where they still wage war.

Anarchism is impossible. The second you abolish all government, you have many ambitious individuals trying to organize a following. People have been seeking world domination for a very long time. It's true we all want to be free and the State wants to control things, but we don't understand that WE want to be the State. WE want control. WE are ambitious. These individuals would be unrestrained and capable to organize and march onto unleashing chaos on bystanders.

This would happen.

I think it's hard to say that the fundamentalists of any type will try to form a private army to conquer the neighboring faction. I think you'll find many people in the same belief system grow tired and want to be left alone. It's my personal belief that the more centralized people become, the more they reject that notion.

If you look at the Old west, it was basically an Anarchist society. There was free trade and cooperation amongst settlers. As a whole they existed just fine without any type of government.

If you look further back to the Native Americans, they existed for hundreds of years without any type of government. They also coexisted with other tribes in different regions. There wasn't mass killings and constant war.

You are correct that people have sought total control for thousands of years. But, there was also some form of government. Whether it was a Monarchy or a republic. The people that lived on the outskirts of these areas, the people that were not apart of the government, they lived without central government.

It's also hard to say that Anarchism wouldn't work, when all we've experienced and learned about in school is government and the state. I'm sure the Native Americans looked at the founders forming the central government and couldn't believe that it would work either. We can't say that Anarchism wouldn't work out of hand. There is more evidence to the contrary.

The nature of government is to grow and seek power. It will continue to grow until it is overthrown or goes bankrupt. When that happens, I highly suggest a new system of Anarcho-Capitalism. It is the closest thing to our true nature. We all want to be left alone.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to 10 Objections, by Roderick Long (http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html)

One thing you really want to run a highlighter over is this:

"I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it."

When addressing anti-anarchists, you need to ask them what gives our government legitimate hegemony over its territories. You can easily thrust aside voting and elections, since those are governmentally imposed constructs, and finding alternative ways of "consenting" to government is not tolerated. So all you're left with is force. The thing that they accuse anarchists of encouraging, they themselves are the worst perpetrators of.

I doubt you'll have much trouble, if you do enough reading and memorizing. Venturing beyond this forum, 99% of responses to anarchist proposals don't get any more intelligent than, "BUT LOL IF TEHRS NO GOVERMNET THEN WELL ALL BE KLILING EACH OHTER AND EVERBODY'LL BE ALL HIGH ON POT LOL!" Just arm yourselves to the teeth with pre-emptive refutations, and beat them over the heads with knowledge. Then pee on their corpses.

[Conza88]

This is exactly my point from the origional post.



Anarchism is impossible. The second you abolish all government, you have many ambitious individuals trying to organize a following. People have been seeking world domination for a very long time. It's true we all want to be free and the State wants to control things, but we don't understand that WE want to be the State. WE want control. WE are ambitious. These individuals would be unrestrained and capable to organize and march onto unleashing chaos on bystanders.

This would happen.

Do me and the rest of humanity a favour. Don't mention anarcho capitalism in your speech.

Matter of fact, WHY do you want to know some 'anarchist' arguments? :confused:

You're clearly better off defending the state, than you are anarchy. As you obviously don't believe in a stateless society. Free from those with a monopoly of force and violence. :rolleyes:

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Hokay so we're going to be criticizing how anarchism isn't viable in society, and since I am unread on the views of anarchism, does anyone here have some good counter-arguments?? Like who would be the authority in anarchism if someone did something wrong (like murder, theft, rape, etc.) and who would have judiciary power, or if even these powers would exist. How would conflicts be resolved? How would contracts be enforced without an enforcer?

Basically, the typical questions you'd have about anarchism.

Just agree. Tell them that if they are afraid of anarchism, they are not fit for self government, and we are more scared of them than they are of us.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I understand many evils exist regardless of government or not, but some of these Christian fundamentalists scare me. They aren't a very large group of people, but they can certainly organize and easily form an army of themselves. With a private military boasting tens of thousands of these psychos, you ultimately have a chaotic scenario where, instead of having the government do the shooting, you have psychos driven by their own bloodlust slaughtering nonbelievers.



Not a good approach to win over people.

[dannno]

Anarchy is not like a form of government to be argued for or against, it is simply a temporary state of existence of society where there is no government authority. It usually occurs after the overthrowing or overpowering of the current government authority. The reason it is temporary is because there is bound to be some sort of authority that takes over or attempts to take over and attempts to rule over the society.

The reason Conza said that most anarchists are classically socialists is because in countries where there is aristocratic or regime rule, they must overthrow the regime before they can reach their goal of taking over society and implementing a social order.

[Andrew-Austin]

http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html


Not a good approach to win over people.

Your right, its not a very good way for Christians to convert people.

[Josh_LA]

arguments for anarchism

1. Nobody should be forced to listen to anybody
2. God gave us rights, so nobody can govern us
3. The Amish work fine
4. History has proven that might makes right, no matter who disagrees.

[Andrew-Austin]

History has proven that might makes right, no matter who disagrees.

What is that even supposed to mean? At least don't use the word 'right' so awkwardly, if you believe there is no such thing. Never mind the horrible failures of people who rule solely by force.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchy is not like a form of government to be argued for or against, it is simply a temporary state of existence of society where there is no government authority. It usually occurs after the overthrowing or overpowering of the current government authority. The reason it is temporary is because there is bound to be some sort of authority that takes over or attempts to take over and attempts to rule over the society.

The reason Conza said that most anarchists are classically socialists is because in countries where there is aristocratic or regime rule, they must overthrow the regime before they can reach their goal of taking over society and implementing a social order.

Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)begs to differ. ;)

[pacelli]

It's obvious that no help is needed. You know how to stir up shit in the middle of an empty septic tank. You'll do fine without any sources.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's obvious that no help is needed. You know how to stir up shit in the middle of an empty septic tank. You'll do fine without any sources.

I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks! :D

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

arguments for anarchism

1. Nobody should be forced to listen to anybody
2. God gave us rights, so nobody can govern us
3. The Amish work fine
4. History has proven that might makes right, no matter who disagrees.
Government is founded on the idea that might makes right. Anarchy would be an end to that.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Anarchy is NOT a form of government. The discussion is flawed from the beginning. Anarchism can ONLY work on a personal level. If enough people who understand the nature of anarchism live together, then it is possible for them to exist with no external government.

If anarchism is treated like a form of government and likewise forced on people, the "anarchists" behind the revolution would be no less tyrannical than the despots they deposed. Seriously, governments exist because not everyone has the moral or intellectual fortitude to be an anarchist. Could you imagine what kind of chaos would erupt if non-anarchist were allowed to make their own decisions about ethics and morality?

[dr. hfn]

the Founders were almost anarchists! They were minarchists!

I hope you kick their statist asses!

[Conza88]

Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)begs to differ. ;)

I has not seen this. :o Thanks


the Founders were almost anarchists! They were minarchists!

I hope you kick their statist asses!

If only there was Mises and Rothbard were around back then... Jefferson would be in profound agreement imo, amongst others. :)

[The_Orlonater]

Ugh, I'm on the borderline of extreme minarchism and anarchism.

[Conza88]

Ugh, I'm on the borderline of extreme minarchism and anarchism.

Have you read any ancap material?

Start visiting lewrockwell.com daily and mises.org :)

Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html)

This helps.