Can someone please explain to me how anarchy is supposed to work? Edited
- Thread starter Pimppeter2
- Start date
What part?Russian_Assassin said:I agree with you about the ungrateful teens thing and no I am not Greek, but Russian. I do live in Greece though and love every bit* of this sunny country ^^pimppeter2 said:
*Except those idiots in the parliament
There is an entire philosophy based on how society might work without government. It's called Libertarianism and it's basically anarchy. The idea is to eliminate all government and state institutions. The way it works is that there is no government but there is an economic system. Private property is the only law, and all basic necessities are provided by private companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism explains it much better then I ever could.
My favourite philosopher in the field is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, he puts the argument really well, and is very convincing, despite a few inconsistencies in his logic.
Anyways, if you really want to know how Anarchy could be organized, that's where you should start looking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism explains it much better then I ever could.
My favourite philosopher in the field is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, he puts the argument really well, and is very convincing, despite a few inconsistencies in his logic.
Anyways, if you really want to know how Anarchy could be organized, that's where you should start looking.
I think you're getting muddled between socialism, communitarianism and anarchism. A lot of what you're saying fits far better under communitarian or socialist ideologies. Very little of what I've read of anarchism stresses either 'by the people, for the people' (socialism; state owned and controlled economy) or 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' (communism; wealth redistribution to further social equality).Totaltruth said:
That aside, in order to elucidate where I'm coming from I'll need to explain freedom. There's two main types of freedom, positive and negative. Negative freedom is 'freedom from'. I'm negatively free to do something if I'm not externally restrained from committing to the action. For instance, if a man is walking down the road and he comes to a 'no-admittance' point beyond which he isn't allowed to cross then he's not negatively free to continue on down the road. Positive freedom is 'freedom to'. For instance, sometimes we can be technically allowed to do something and nothing external is coercing us to commit to a different action but we can still be incapable of committing to the action we choose. To illustrate, imagine the same man walking down the road only this time instead of a 'no-admittance' area there's a tobacco shop. Because of his addiction to tobacco he's inwardly compelled to stop walking down the road and instead enters the tobacco shop. No-one forced him to do so and his inability to commit to his original action (walking down the road) was not the result of external coercion, he simply was not positively free to continue walking down the road, even though he was negatively free to do so.
Now, let's apply this to the anarchist doctor. Let's say there's a patient before her who's suffering from an affliction only she can cure. The doctor can set whatever contract she feels like setting, no matter how harsh, without impunity. There's no framework of law to prevent her from exploiting others and the community cannot realistically refuse to enter into contracts with her because she's too integral to the functioning of society. There's no penalty to be incurred from an unfair contract and given that unfair contracts immensely benefit her why should she not enter into them? The sick patient is negatively free to reject the contract, there is no law or externally coercive force preventing him from doing so, but realistically he cannot refuse whatever unfair contract is put before him because to do so would be a death knell. He's never positively free to deny her harsh contract. This is why I dislike anarchism and libertarianism. Both go all out negative freedom and just totally ignore positive freedom.
Whilst the society surrounding the doctor may implore her to act fairly, appealing to notions of equality and justice, if she simply doesn't see their motivations as worthwhile then there's nothing that can make her act fairly. In statist theories the state can simply set rules preventing exploitation, the anarchist is not left this avenue for escape because as soon as the community starts obeying rules, even directly democratically set rules, anarchism becomes socialism.
Anyway, please show me how this would fail to be the case.
In regards to muddling of ideologies, I was trying to state extended beliefs held by many anarchists aside from just opposition to centralised power structures. In doing so, this also shares ideas with socialism and communitarianism.
That's about as far as I can push it, you seem intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between the practicalities of anarchism to what we're offered today.
Just because Anarchism is a free society with no state intervention doesn't mean one only has negative freedom. A deeper understanding of positive freedom involves the 'lower' and 'upper' self. In your case of the doctor thr lower self desires to exploit others for individual benefit. Though the upper self involves self mastery of oneself and is therefore the ultimate in positive freedom such that the doctor will aid others. If a person wants to be an autonomous being maximising their freedom, succumbing to exploitation of others for material benefit in this case is harmful to oneself. Therefore doesn't Anarchism strongly encourage positive freedom?
Won't a statist theory setting laws and rules impose on more negative and positive freedom than Anarchism in this example?
That's about as far as I can push it, you seem intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between the practicalities of anarchism to what we're offered today.
On a sidenote, perhaps begin a new thread on positive and negative freedom. They can be quite complex though and I feel you've weighted them too heavily for your argument, have been swayed before developing a deeper understanding of anarchism with positive and negative freedoms.BGH122 said:
Just because Anarchism is a free society with no state intervention doesn't mean one only has negative freedom. A deeper understanding of positive freedom involves the 'lower' and 'upper' self. In your case of the doctor thr lower self desires to exploit others for individual benefit. Though the upper self involves self mastery of oneself and is therefore the ultimate in positive freedom such that the doctor will aid others. If a person wants to be an autonomous being maximising their freedom, succumbing to exploitation of others for material benefit in this case is harmful to oneself. Therefore doesn't Anarchism strongly encourage positive freedom?
Won't a statist theory setting laws and rules impose on more negative and positive freedom than Anarchism in this example?
I was probably unclear before, I meant that the patient is not positively free to decline the contract the doctor sets. The doctor is positively free to do whatever she wants unless some moral inhibition prevents her from acting exploitatively. This is the power dynamic I have a problem with because disbanding the state doesn't solve the hierarchical power dynamic, there's still individuals who, in virtue of their talents, have power over others. Whilst the common folk would operate on a roughly equal lateral power relationship, skilled workers will still be in a higher demand and therefore more powerful.Totaltruth said:
Furthermore, in regards to upper and lower selves, this seems entirely subjective and related to one's view of the ideal self. If one believes that mastery of the base urges is necessary for true freedom, as Plato would claim, then it appears that one must see the human being as more than just a bundle of desires and urges. It seems that one is forced to take the Platonic approach of saying that the intellect is a separate thing to the body and that urges impede the intellect and freedom can only be attained when the intellect is free to act unimpeded. Whilst there's nothing wrong with this theory per se, it doesn't automatically entail that as soon as urges are suppressed humans will be transcendent and brotherly, it simply seems they'll be less illogical and no longer be governed by whims.
Sorry for the late reply, I just developed quite an apathetic attitude towards posting after reading so many obscure posts in a recent vegetarian thread.BGH122 said:
I believe in this example that both the Doctor and patient are 'free' to more of an extent than any other ideologies offer. Particularly in a community which would promote social welfare moreso. I agree that this doesn't solve a natural power dynamic that is inherent in human beings, though realistically, nothing can. I am now interested in what ideology you subscribe to/sympathise with?
When I was talking of upper and lower selves I was talking of individual positive freedoms, to prove positive freedom isn't completely absent. Though, it is quite different to conventionally defined positive freedom, thus I admit what I wrote could easily have been confusing...and still may be!
I wouldn't put freedom and transcendent on the same terms, though yes I do believe self-mastery(to a certain degree, not beyond losing touch with ones natural being) is required to be truly free.
If it lies in Human-nature to act like a dick, then why should we give some people more power than others?Zombie_Fish said:
Also, if what you say is true, then aren't laws and regulations just our way of covering up the fact that we're incapable of living together. Thus sparking the question, "Are we living in a lie?".
--Xvito, keeping it excellent.
Because it's the people with more power than others that need to stop us from just doing whatever we want and killing eachother. We give people we expect to be responsible power, so that they can set a standard and keep an order. The problems comes when they realise this power they've got and they want more, and eventually you have a dictatorship. That is if my theory about human selfishness is correct.Xvito said:
In Lord of the Flies by William Golding, rules become abused, ignored and eventually dissapear. Following that, the tribe descend into savagery and two people are killed as a result. That example may be based around a piece of fiction, but the moral behind it is based around the same phylosophical theory (Whether or not society can survive without rules) influenced by the author's experience in WWI.
Laws and regulations are there to limit our actions. If laws weren't there, there would be nothing to stop you going out and killing everyone that gets in your way. If you were in a queue and someone got in your way, you could kill them. You may choose not to, but there's also nothing stopping them from killing you, if they chose to.
At that point, society has two choices. Try and form a working and equal order, or descend into survival of the fittest. We are capable of living together, but only if we are to accept everyone as being equal to one another. Not even the communists managed that, as despite their fame for equality, politicians were favoured and people against them were killed.
So as your question goes, "Are we living a lie?", we could easily be. To find that out we would need to dive into the deepest areas of our consciousness and the roots of society, to see who we care more about, ourselves or everyone around us? If it is everyone around us, and that is the core of humanity, then we could live together easily without rules, but if it's ourselves, then what would stop us from getting rid of everyone in our way? We wouldn't be able to live with eachother without rules, so we would be living a lie then.
Also, I don't like the idea of acting like a dick as being in human nature, as that implies that it is impossible for humans to create an equal society without a need for rules. I prefer to think of it as a flaw humanity can improve on.
--Zombie_Fish, keeping it boring.
You're an interesting fellow, I like the fact that you've clearly thought all this through and can easily adapt to criticism.Totaltruth said:
Personally I'm a nationalist. I have a deeply pessimistic view of the human spirit. I think that it's necessarily antagonistic, always set up with an underlying desire to promote the self and the extended self (the family, for instance). I think the human spirit drives us to commit acts of conflict upon other humans. It seems, as Hobbes put it, an obvious fact that resources are scarce and this scarcity will be a source of conflict for any self-interested being. Whether this resource be food, as Hobbes was referring too, or money, it's still true to say that the self-interested individual will be willing to exploit or subjugate others to ensure its own survival and the survival of those it views as part of its self-interest. I think the only way that we can use this drive to a pleasant end is to make the society and the nation part of the extended self. If clear national identity is available, alongside a promotion of selfless patriotism, then the extended-self can grow to envelop the nation. Under this circumstance the skilled professional would be less willing to exploit his fellow men as it'd conflict with his self-interest.
The only problem with this view is that nationalism tends to fast descend into aggressive nationalism, as with the colonial era or Nazi Germany, in which all the various patriotic nations, aware of their duty to their own interests, are willing to subjugate and exploit foreign nations which are seen as possessing lesser importance, or perhaps even rights, than one's own nation. I do not see how any anarchistic/socialistic/communitarian philosophy could ever work in anything but theory because they all rest on such a positive view of human nature.