"Communism is for the intellegent dreamer, Anarchy is for the ignorant dreamer, Democracy is for the realistic.
Democracy, unlike the other two, is compatable with human nature. The problem with the other two is that it does not take into account that human nature is greed and power. Survival of the fitest. "
"There are many aspects of human nature. You forget selfishness Anarchy fails because it is unstable - people will not live together in peace without laws. It is human nature to want power and eventually someone siezes it.
Communism is similar in that it is also unstable, but it is actually LESS stable than anarchy because it requires absolute cooperation between all participants. Anarchy does not. At the very least anarchy recognizes that people are different frome each other.
Clarification (someone else touched on it): The “communism” I speak of is Marxism or “pure” communism. Various watered down forms of communism have been tried and a few have even remained stable for a while. NONE have really worked though. Not even Cuba.
Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be “legitimate,” the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy. Marxist communism would meet this criteria, and even complete anarchy would. But neither can actually function in REALITY. They are utopian pipe dreams."
“Capitalism is the economic system that goes with deomcracy. Socialism is the economic system that goes with communism. So I often say “democracy/capitalism” and “communism/socialism” to represent the two systems. Many people use the words interchangeably. Though not technically correct, thats what they mean when they say it.”
And equality for them “uppity negrahs” was just a dream.
Of course anarchy does. The person clearly thinks that anarchists think that everyone will be good all the time and there would be no laws. Only someone ignorant of what anarchy/anarchism is would think such…and there are a lot of ignorant people out there.
Democracy actually goes hand-in-hand with communism, since it is majority rule, and the majority can vote to expropriate the producers.
Government power is delegated only by consent of the governed. Unless consent is expressly given, it cannot be assumed, and if given -OR- assumed, it can be withdrawn.
As anarchy is the absence of coercion there is no possible way to derive a “legitimate” form of government under this model of social organization unless every single person agrees with every single decision of the government at all times, anything less is merely tyranny of the majority and is inherently inconsistent with anarchy and liberty.
Also the whole utopian fallacy. Note: This was the first result in a google search so I have no knowledge of the overall views of ‘Citizen X’.
What really makes me chuckle are these ridiculous claims:
“Communism is for the intellegent dreamer”
“Also, I subscribe to the political theory of self determination: In order for a government to be “legitimate,” the power MUST be derived from the PEOPLE. In practice, the ONLY form of government that meets this criteria is the various forms of democracy.”
Funny. All three of those propositions are the precise opposite of what I would say.
It really grinds my gears when people think in terms of whether a proposed type of society will work, as if a standard for functionality were anything but arbitrary. People can live perfectly well in even the most severe communist dictatorships, although it sucks. Why not base one’s standards on morality? (Freedom, anyone?)
The argument seems to go like “We really like commumism, but we don’t like some of its effects so we’re going to go with its exact opposite…” (WHAAA?!)
More importantly, in what sense are democracy and capitalism natural concomitants? Democracy simply means leaving decisions that normally would be made by an individual to be made by everybody, which is exactly what socialists want (and why all democracies are or become socialistic).
Clearly this person has never thought for himself a day in his life.
Wow, that’s a really good point and I’d never thought of approaching it like that. I always get asked by people “do you really think anarchy would actually work?” and now I have a decent response other then “well, yeah…” Thanks!
So the solution is an institution that will attract the most power hungry and then give them, and them alone, the ability to coerce people? That makes sense.
So the solution is an institution that will attract the most power hungry and then give them, and them alone, the ability to coerce people? That makes sense.
The only time “The People” speak with one voice is when they are unanimous. Thus, no government can be legitimate unless it has unanimous support. Majoritarian democracy is not legitimate, nor is “representative democracy”.
Wow, way to misunderstand anarchy. The whole ambition found in human beings is not natural. Instad, it is the result of power (initially given for survival), the precedent of which is set up by government. If it really is survival of the fittest, how come people give powers to other people? Wouldn’t we see massive power grabs in ALL countries? Why would everything not be run like a mafia? Maybe it’s because humans really aren’t power hungry creatures, but rather social one’s who have been betrayed by the organization to which they willingly gave power to.
Depending on the type of anarchist, human coperation is can actually be central to anarchism. Fallacial argument.
Also, laws do not make people moral or peaceful. If that was the case, why do people oppose new laws? Why do people consistently break laws? Why have there been any revolts, which are clearly against the law? The reason is that laws can be based off of morality, but are not necessarly moral in and out of themselves. And people breaking laws is NOT an argument against anarchism, because it is imposition of abusive laws and poverty (statistics consistenly show high crime rates on poor neighborhoods) that people break laws in the first place. And what has brought about abusive lows and poverty? Government and abusive authority. Take that away and begin bridging socio-economic gaps and crime rates will decrease. Education and rationality also goes a long way.
Why would anarchism be a pipe-dream? Just because it seems like a far-away goal at the moment does not mean it shoud not be a goal to be worked for. Anarchism can also vary in economical shapes.
Sorry, but this ‘argument’ against anarchism demonstrates a complete ignorance of anarchistic ideals. Try again.
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous antropology here. Government does not indoctrinate ambition into man; rather, ambition, and the desire of power is naturally in man.
Man has realized that the most advantageous means for attaining his desired ends is through society, and trusting other individuals in quid pro quo relationships. In addition, individuals are able to trust others, knowing that the laws of society will be enforced, and those who try to utilize violence as a means will be prosecuted.
The latter statement is an utter non sequitur off of the former. Of course laws do not make people intrinsically more moral, and peaceful; but, what they can accomplish is ensuring that individuals who do break the law are punished hence rising the costs of violent behavior in society. While an individual may not be made more moral by a law, he may very well be persuaded not to break the law due to the possibility of punishment.
Because man is often nothing but a savage animal.
Just because there is a law against theft does not mean that there will be no theft; rather, the law aims at persecuting those who partake in the behavior, thus deterring others.
No.
You really don’t comprehend the arguments against anarchist, do you?
Neither abusive laws, nor poverty are the only causes of crime. In addition, poverty is the human condition; wherever man is, poverty will follow him - poverty will never be eradicated for poverty is a relative position that will always be defined as those lowest on the economic ladder. In addition, the abolition of government will not mean the abolition of abusive laws for there is no reason why a regional defense company could not enforce laws against drugs, or irreverent behavior through the force of arms.
Ridiculous? Government certainly does. Why does it promote nationalism (the focus on the abstract) and the wanting to expoit others rather than community? Doesn’t government set the example by imposing it’s views on society? Does it not set an example as politicians abuse their power and lobbyists promote the interest of the few? If ambition and the desire for power is naturally in man, how come there has been so many political movements to undermine the ammount of power that can be acquired by an individual? Wouldn’t it make more sense that every human being would advocate absolute power over each other and ALWAYS be competing to be “ruler of the world”? Why would an abolitionist movement even have existed? Wouldn’t they all want to have slaves (imposing their powers and ambitions over others)? Maybe beause there is more, and power and authority breeds ambition. May I remind you, people were NOT born racist. They had to have had inferiors under their command for decades for racist ideas to even develop. So it’s power and authority (accidently acquired by technology, done to facilitate manual work) that have corrupted men. And what is government but power and authority? What would stop sane government officials from getting killed by a bloodthirsty mob?
But if man was ambitious and power hungry, why would not every human being try to ensure his/her position in a government position? How come we see humility and philanthropy (giving to others, taking away from what you have, something that violates this principle). And what is anarchy but trust in fellow men and their ability to be rational? It is placing equal authority over others, so no group can impose itself on another, and yet we all care for each other. Isn’t that advantageous at the end? Sure, there is some self-interest involved, but this doesn’t make man evil. For how can one interact with another without identity of the self? And why do people use violence? Because they’ve been given a taste of authority and they want more. And government is just temptation. Anarchism tries to remove the very reasons for why people become violent (no, they are not naturally violent, you have to become “immune” to it by constant exposure to violence). This makes no sense given your previous statement.
No, it is not a non-sequitur. It just requires some thinking on the part of the reader. If laws naturally made men more moral and peaceful (and if that is advantageous to all), why would anyone DREAM of opposing laws? IF laws were the moral center, why do laws sometimes violate morality? Because they are not connected! What is the point of making people scared of commiting a crime? If they feel that there wont be any repercussion, they will commit it anyway. Or if the government that enforces the laws collapses, anarchy ensues. POINTLESS. What is the point of incarcerating someone if the moment they are released they will break the laws again? Why not have people understand WHY something is morally wrong. If you understand something, you don’t need someone chasing you around and scaring you into obedience. If you understand 2+2=4, you do not need a teacher to follow you around reminding you about the concept. All laws do is scare people into not breaking laws, while not addressing the reasons WHY they would do so. You don’t really need laws and jails, etc. If you have people understanding and caring for each other, and rationalizing, morality comes (naturally) with it.
Oh, and what does government do to stop it? “Because it is in the convinience of all”? But if it was as savage as you say, why wouldn’t we see more crimes from people taking advantage of existing social order to maximize their own profits? What stops government officials from becoming savage animals and taking over the system? Why hasn’t it happened already? What makes you so special? Are you just a savage animal, looking on how to kill everyone else in the world? If you are nothing more than a savage animal, and I’m nothign more than a savage animal, how come we are capable of rational debate and how come we make use of it? Wouldn’t it be more expedient to my savage irrational needs to just create chaos? There isn’t even enough police forces out there to stop “savage animals” worldwide from getting rid of any social order. And what stops the police and/or military from enforcing it’s powers? A piece of court papers telling them it’s not okay to be savage animals? Please! Spare me.
Actually more of an argument for anarchism. Laws and government don’t do anything unless they are respected. If humans are capable of respecting such institutions, why shouldn’t they be able to respect each other without laws and government telling them what to do? You yourself stated that they don’t do anything in actually stopping anything. It’s based on respect. And that’s what anarchism is. Respecting others.
You really can’t think outside the box, can you? Man is naturally ambitious and power-hungry, and yet they respect laws that aren’t worth anything in and out of themselves, and when they could be maximizing their powers and ambitions by always breaking them. Man is powerful and ambitious and putting up a system based on power and ambition somehow stops this power and ambition from manifesting itself. Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense. I think YOU are the one unable to comprehend what anarchism really is and what anarchists truly believe.
Anarchism does not promise an end to poverty. But what I meant by poverty is the condition in which human beings don’t have access to basic needs (food, etc.) and humans looking out for others. Abusive laws and poverty brought about by human apathy and corrupt authority are the main contributors to crime. I could even argue that they are the only causes of crime (as abuse of authority CAN have direct and inderect results. It’s more complex than what you are making it out to be).
Anarchism isn’t JUST the abolition of government as you understand it. It’s ANY form of unjustified authority over fellow human beings. Again, you misunderstand what anarchism really is.