leviadragon99 said:It is rather breathtakingly naïve to suggest we can get by without any sort of leadership or organization whatsoever, Nihilism and Anarchism do not tend to be productive ways to live or operate in a society.
I think this shows a little potential misunderstanding of what exactly Anarchy is, at least in the philosophical/academic/non-hyperbolic sense. I see it used a lot to just mean "A state of chaos," and while a state of chaos is, by definition, in Anarchy, Anarchy is not automatically chaotic. Essentially it is used to describe a state without Rulers, but not without rules.Originality said:When people take matters into their own hands, anarchy follows.
Plenty, from Aristotle and Socretes all the way through to Marx and de Tocqueville. Indeed, part of the reason Rousseau resigned himself to a social contract model is because he recognised that people tend to interact with each other and will want to form societies with each other, and thus a method is needed for legitimising the government (done through the social contract) as a government itself is essentially inevitable.saltyanon said:Is there any theory or philosopher that states/have stated that government for us as a species is inevitable? I mean, I wonder if our government is basically an evolution of our structure as a social animal, of the pack alpha, if you will.
Much like Communism or Objectivism, Anarchism relies on a dangerous level of trust in the better nature of each and every citizen of a society, a trust that is statistically speaking, not always deserved.Durendal5150 said:leviadragon99 said:It is rather breathtakingly naïve to suggest we can get by without any sort of leadership or organization whatsoever, Nihilism and Anarchism do not tend to be productive ways to live or operate in a society.I think this shows a little potential misunderstanding of what exactly Anarchy is, at least in the philosophical/academic/non-hyperbolic sense. I see it used a lot to just mean "A state of chaos," and while a state of chaos is, by definition, in Anarchy, Anarchy is not automatically chaotic. Essentially it is used to describe a state without Rulers, but not without rules.Originality said:When people take matters into their own hands, anarchy follows.
As a sort of pseudo-anarchist myself, it's not authority with which I and others take issue, it's coercive authority. When one places themselves under someone else's authority freely, that's one thing. When someone places their authority over you, that's another.
The video and ensuing discussion imply that people voluntarily give up rights to the government or state, and even if that were originally the case, you can't say that all people are born automatically wanting to do so. By default then, some (or most, or all,) people are placed under the states authority with no recourse.
Say for example (and perhaps not the best example,) someone wanted to move off into the woods, live life simply, without bothering anyone else? How long do you think before the state sends someone to collect taxes? To arrest them for trespassing on unused land? To throw them in jail for illegally creating or consuming alcohol or narcotics in a manner that influences nobody? And when they do so, for whose benefit, exactly, was that action?
Not the greatest or most poignant example, but maybe someone can think up a better one.
All in all, I'll agree that it takes a certain mindset and certain social values for any sort of anarchism to function, but I increasingly find the social and political values of modern society to be frankly distasteful anyway. (The terminal values enacted, not those it claims.)
Oh it's definitely not perfect, and people certainly aren't. I'm not naive or outright foolish enough to think you could just abolish the government tomorrow and everything would suddenly be better. I don't however, feel like such a society is impossible with the right planning and groundwork. Difficult to establish? Absolutely. Maybe not even feasible without several intermediate stages between the society we live in now. That said, i feel like the discussion of how to start moving towards a non-coercive society is important.leviadragon99 said:Much like Communism or Objectivism, Anarchism relies on a dangerous level of trust in the better nature of each and every citizen of a society, a trust that is statistically speaking, not always deserved.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be nice if we could live under one of these systems (some of them moreso than others) and everyone was awesome to each other, but that doesn't seem like a realistic outlook. That is why Anarchism is so closely associated with chaos, it will almost inevitably trend towards that final outcome because humans aren't perfect, shockingly.
The downsides actually are obvious, and I don't really think that sort of lifestyle is enviable, or not a sign of potential trouble for the individual pursuing it. If their behavior is harming others then yes, action needs to be taken. The real point is, if their actions are provably not harming others, why does the state have the right to force them to change their lifestyle, or take away their freedoms?leviadragon99 said:Oh, and in the case of that person dwelling in the woods, if they're self-medicated with copious amounts of cave-brewed alcohol and hallucinogens, there's a very real chance they could be a danger to others looking to camp in those woods, or leave the woods in a drugged-up haze to attack someone outside of them, or be in desperate need of mental health treatment that they are hurting themselves by avoiding with this isolation, the downsides of such hermitlike behaviour may not be so obvious to you, but they're definitely there in a worst-case scenario.
Well if we're dealing with such remote hypotheticals, then maybe it would be possible to fundamentally shift the structures of society over time and several intermediary stages like that... but that still relies on there being absolutely no negative traits INHERANT to human nature, people can argue all day about nature versus nurture and whether or not a given aspect is something people are immutably born with, but assuming that such rogue variables could not still arise in that hands-off system seems to imply you believe we can fundamentally alter human nature in every successive generation born... which seems unlikely.Durendal5150 said:Oh it's definitely not perfect, and people certainly aren't. I'm not naive or outright foolish enough to think you could just abolish the government tomorrow and everything would suddenly be better. I don't however, feel like such a society is impossible with the right planning and groundwork. Difficult to establish? Absolutely. Maybe not even feasible without several intermediate stages between the society we live in now. That said, i feel like the discussion of how to start moving towards a non-coercive society is important.leviadragon99 said:Much like Communism or Objectivism, Anarchism relies on a dangerous level of trust in the better nature of each and every citizen of a society, a trust that is statistically speaking, not always deserved.
Don't get me wrong, I think it would be nice if we could live under one of these systems (some of them moreso than others) and everyone was awesome to each other, but that doesn't seem like a realistic outlook. That is why Anarchism is so closely associated with chaos, it will almost inevitably trend towards that final outcome because humans aren't perfect, shockingly.
There will always be problems that will end tragically, but I feel like current society places far too much emphasis on force, be it either the suspension of a persons freedoms, seizure of their property, or physical, bodily violence, to create desired behavior. I sometimes like to put it that, if there are non-violent, victemless "crimes" for which the reaction is "Men with guns come to your house," society has not reached an ideal state.
True, society probably never will reach an ideal state. Probably impossible, but not trying anyway seems like the worst case of culture-wide pessimism I've ever heard of.
The downsides actually are obvious, and I don't really think that sort of lifestyle is enviable, or not a sign of potential trouble for the individual pursuing it. If their behavior is harming others then yes, action needs to be taken. The real point is, if their actions are provably not harming others, why does the state have the right to force them to change their lifestyle, or take away their freedoms?leviadragon99 said:Oh, and in the case of that person dwelling in the woods, if they're self-medicated with copious amounts of cave-brewed alcohol and hallucinogens, there's a very real chance they could be a danger to others looking to camp in those woods, or leave the woods in a drugged-up haze to attack someone outside of them, or be in desperate need of mental health treatment that they are hurting themselves by avoiding with this isolation, the downsides of such hermitlike behaviour may not be so obvious to you, but they're definitely there in a worst-case scenario.