Anarchism

[Nippon]

1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property.

 

If you don't agree with this, you won't agree with the fundamentals of anarchism.

 

If you do agree with this, if you want to live in a society that upholds these values, you are already an anarchist inside.

 

 

What is anarchy? Anarchy is the lack of state or any other structural system that strips the rights presented in 1. State, government, violates this fundamental moral value by essentially putting a gun against your head and forcing you to pay taxes. State violates your right to self-determination starting from the minute you are born to the world, it steals your property and forces an arbitrary allocation of resources that you rightfully own.

 

It pretends to pay you back by offering services like security and welfare. But you never asked for these services and if you did want them you could buy them yourself with the money you lost in taxes. Why do we need a government to decide for us how to best spend our income? We don't. Nobody knows what services you need better than you do.

 

"But who will deal justice if not the state?", you might ask. How does the state determine what is justifiable, how are laws passed? Isn't it so that these laws originate from the people, the moral values held by our society as a whole? It is not the government who decided that stealing or murdering is wrong, it was us. If these moral values originate from ourselves, not the government, wouldn't they be carried out by a society without a government? Once again, why do we need a government to regulate these laws, when laws and justice originate from us as a society? Why do we tolerate theft by the state if we think that stealing is wrong? Why do we tolerate any personal harm from the state, if we believe in the right to self-determination?

 

My argument is this:

 

If we, as a society, uphold the moral values presented in 1), there is no moral justification, no legitimacy and indeed no need for the existence of the state or any other structural violence machinery.

[M4G1CA]

Anarchy leads to absolute freedom, sure - the absolute freedom to oppress.

 

Remove the government and you are left with corporations and other interest groups backed by immense financial power. Who will be responsible for ensuring that no monopolies are formed, which is a requirement for a free market? If you go as far as to say that society could create an institution that monitors these corporations, then why not go the extra step and call this institution by name: "government".

 

I could carry on but I have to go eat lunch now

[Nippon]

Anarchy leads to absolute freedom, sure - the absolute freedom to oppress.

 

Remove the government and you are left with corporations and other interest groups backed by immense financial power. Who will be responsible for ensuring that no monopolies are formed, which is a requirement for a free market? If you go as far as to say that society could create an institution that monitors these corporations, then why not go the extra step and call this institution by name: "government".

 

Most non-natural monopolies are a result of government regulation. In a free market situation, monopolies that form are natural monopolies in one way or another (economies of scale, technological superiority, etc.)

 

We will never achieve perfect competition, but we can achieve free markets, these are two different things.

[employee]

1 reply in nearly 3 months, your topic has certainly sparked quite a debate

[Nippon]

1 reply in nearly 3 months, your topic has certainly sparked quite a debate

 

10 one-sentence replys in 10 minutes, you are certainly desperate for post count.

[Lee-Kanker]

I agree although I wouldn't, to an extent classify myself as an anarchist.

 

You mentioned Social Security and Welfare which are institutions that rely in part in our taxes. But don't forget about what our taxes take care of. Good Roads, Clean Air, Good Property.

 

Yeah I think it's ****** up how we're obligated to pay Taxes for things like our property, to me it seems like you never truly own your home when you have to pay taxes on your property for as long as you live there, even after you pay off your mortgage. Income taxes are understandable, as they fun many essential things we need.

 

As for Police/FBI/CIA/ and things like that, I don't think we need a third party to regulate what we do. There are some places where I know Police won't go and crime is low just due to the fact that everyone has their own gun and can take matters into their own hands.

[Nippon]

You mentioned Social Security and Welfare which are institutions that rely in part in our taxes. But don't forget about what our taxes take care of. Good Roads, Clean Air, Good Property.

 

If government didn't take care of roads, would people stop using roads? Hardly. Roads would be privately owned and the people who use those roads would pay for the upcosts.

 

Clean air is problematic in that the private costs of using clean air are sometimes smaller than the social/public costs. We still don't need government to organize the artificial cost, there are legal ways of determining the proper cost and beneficiaries without government interference.

 

What you mean with Good Property is unclear.

[Reilly]

I agree with most of the fundamental virtues of Libertarianism, but the problem I see unfolding in a state of anarchy is not premised on moral justification, rather a realistic gap between theory and practice. I feel as though you're debating this particular topic from a meta-ethical perspective which can be paradoxical by virtue of contradiction when compared to tangible, real world situations. First I'd like to analyze your first statement however:

 

"1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property."

 

Firstly, to what lengths do humans realistically have the ability to self-determine their own lives? (Obviously I'm challenging your notion of free-will). Neuro-biological, psychological, socio-poltical, etc. structures all restrict the ability for humans to fulfill and live by the notion of freedom that most individuals adhere to. We could debate the sociological and political structures all day, but it is impossible to escape our own biological shortcomings.

 

Second, in a state of political anarchism it is paradoxical to assume individuals could control 'property'. This particular discourse is impacted and regulated very clearly through governmental laws, so in a state of anarchy how could one individual control property over another?

 

My real problem with anarchism, however, doesn't lay in either of these faults. To be frank, I agree with much of Locke's social contract theory, and believe government holds legitimacy and requires an existence in theory to better the citizens lives as a whole. In practice I believe we need government because human nature simply requires it; without government citizens would commit acts of wrongdoing against each other to further their own causes. Egocentricity and the apathetic nature of human interactions is the necessitated reason for the existence of governments, imo.

[Nippon]

"1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property."

 

Firstly, to what lengths do humans realistically have the ability to self-determine their own lives? (Obviously I'm challenging your notion of free-will). Neuro-biological, psychological, socio-poltical, etc. structures all restrict the ability for humans to fulfill and live by the notion of freedom that most individuals adhere to. We could debate the sociological and political structures all day, but it is impossible to escape our own biological shortcomings.

 

The argument was not for whether or not humans have the ability to self-determine their own lives, but whether they have the right to do so. While it may be that the world is causal and deterministic to its core, and therefore any choices we make are illusionary, the question here is whether you believe you should have the right to make those choices and for others to have that same right. It is a real choice between authoritarianism and individualism.

 

Second, in a state of political anarchism it is paradoxical to assume individuals could control 'property'. This particular discourse is impacted and regulated very clearly through governmental laws, so in a state of anarchy how could one individual control property over another?

Here lies a danger of accepting the concept of some sort of natural rights. This is not the case I make for an anarchistic society. The rights proposed as prerequisites for an anarchistic society are legal rights, social contracts, but not between the individual and the state but between the individuals that establish anarchist society.

 

This would require that all or a sufficient amount of individuals in the society uphold the rights as presented in 1. The two most obvious problems are a) it might be that not everyone in the society would accept these rights and B) issues regarding what is considered property of someone. Two likely solution are that a) would in an anarchistic society be solved by private violence machinery and B) by a private court system. Notice that the prerequisite for an anarchistic society as presented here is that a sufficient amount of people uphold the private and property rights as presented in 1. As such, violations of the property rights as established by the private court system would be rare due to social pressure alone.

 

Let's be realistic here. Most people have a fairly good idea of what is their property. It is unlikely that this concept would disappear without governmental laws supporting it. Thus neither would property, because governmental laws are not what actually determines property in a society, it is the concept of property shared by the individuals in that society.

 

My real problem with anarchism, however, doesn't lay in either of these faults. To be frank, I agree with much of Locke's social contract theory, and believe government holds legitimacy and requires an existence in theory to better the citizens lives as a whole. In practice I believe we need government because human nature simply requires it; without government citizens would commit acts of wrongdoing against each other to further their own causes. Egocentricity and the apathetic nature of human interactions is the necessitated reason for the existence of governments, imo.

 

The problem you present is indeed a problem between theory and practice, but I maintain that it is not a fundamental problem with human nature. Human nature as an absolute is not a sufficient explanation for 21st century culture and society. Society and culture have proven to have the ability to alter human behavior beyond "human nature", so much so that human nature as biology alone suggests isn't consistent with praxis in societal theory.

 

To go back to what I proposed in the very beginning

 

1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property.

 

If you don't agree with this, you won't agree with the fundamentals of anarchism.

 

If you do agree with this, if you want to live in a society that upholds these values, you are already an anarchist inside.

 

It would seem that the society does not uphold these values today, and here is the actual gap between theory and practice (as, I suggest, we would otherwise live in an anarchy), but to be an anarchist is to accept these values and wait for the day that the society will too, insofar as waiting is the right way to advance towards the goal.

[Reilly]

The argument was not for whether or not humans have the ability to self-determine their own lives, but whether they have the right to do so. While it may be that the world is causal and deterministic to its core, and therefore any choices we make are illusionary, the question here is whether you believe you should have the right to make those choices and for others to have that same right. It is a real choice between authoritarianism and individualism.

 

What gives anyone the right to do anything? You're assuming we have some form of metaphysical rights granted upon us. You suggest in your next paragraph that these rights stem from some social contract or notions of law, so I'll address this later on. Our current discourse of rights, as with property, has been constructed through social structures and regulated by the government and various moral contracts (Humanistic values, religion, etc). The rights that you have are carved through legalities and enforced through a complex system of rules, regulations and laws upon which we abide by. What I believe is that these various systematic ways of approaching our understanding of rights must be regulated by some form of objective entity, in this case the government.

 

If we have rights, are they not objectively universal to all humans, regardless of geo-political structures, moral hierarchies, religious teachings, etc. If this is the case why are these rights not instated fully in practice for all humans, where do they originate and what evidence validates this theory to begin with? Once again governments are necessitated to regulate our 'social world' practically.

 

I feel as though you're suggesting that we can only have a radical system of anarchism or a completely authoritarian dictatorship lol. There can be some middle ground here where government realistically improves and works towards the betterment of its citizens. Our notions of rights have originated throughout a historical dimension, being shaped and warped by different philosophical shifts in thinking, new scientific advancements, religious influence throughout the centuries and their different value/virtue systems, social structures and so on.

 

At one point it was a believed 'right' to own slaves; if that is false than why has the universal right to self-determination and control not been practiced in reality? Imo, this suggests an egocentric human core that has been shaped by our desire to maintain the best possible life, and manifested through social, religious and political systems. We owned slaves because they were not human according to some, or because social hierarchies simply accepted this form of perception as normal and natural. Whatever it may be the conceptualization of rights is fundamentally no more than a very dearly accepted human virtue, and because of the subjectivity of these virtues we must have some form of regulation that transcends privatized communities. This form of thinking is simply impractical for contemporary society, we are not ready for these differing varieties of privatized communities because the powerful would rule over the weak apathetically (Though many would argue this happens right now anyways lol, so whats the difference really?)

 

If we, as a society, uphold the moral values presented in 1), there is no moral justification, no legitimacy and indeed no need for the existence of the state or any other structural violence machinery.

 

The governments legitimacy lies within the social contract we form with them, just as you're implying privatized communities would form social contracts. We need no moral justification - Morality, as with the government and other social structures is ever changing and being impacted by many different things throughout a historical dimension. It’s necessitated by human nature and the sheer complexity of the current social systems: From globalization to economic systems, cherished values and social hierarchies, our personal lives and macro-communities, the government oversees, regulates and intersubjectively links all these different social structures that effectively aids in running our everyday lives. It simply is not realistic to radically scrap all systems of governments that has such a clear social discourse in one swoop; we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves because the government is so intertwined in our day to day lives. What would happen to our monetary systems? How would we enforce laws? What would be our means of trade, who would regulate this and how would countries run themselves? Herein lies the need for government: The complexity of the social world and its monolithic impact on our lives.

 

Here lies a danger of accepting the concept of some sort of natural rights. This is not the case I make for an anarchistic society. The rights proposed as prerequisites for an anarchistic society are legal rights, social contracts, but not between the individual and the state but between the individuals that establish anarchist society.

 

This would require that all or a sufficient amount of individuals in the society uphold the rights as presented in 1. The two most obvious problems are a) it might be that not everyone in the society would accept these rights and B) issues regarding what is considered property of someone. Two likely solution are that a) would in an anarchistic society be solved by private violence machinery and B) by a private court system. Notice that the prerequisite for an anarchistic society as presented here is that a sufficient amount of people uphold the private and property rights as presented in 1. As such, violations of the property rights as established by the private court system would be rare due to social pressure alone.

Let's be realistic here. Most people have a fairly good idea of what is their property. It is unlikely that this concept would disappear without governmental laws supporting it. Thus neither would property, because governmental laws are not what actually determines property in a society, it is the concept of property shared by the individuals in that society.

 

Problem: Society may not collectively agree on a set of universal rights.

Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court system.

 

Uhm, I was under the impression that the whole objective in dismantling the government was to actualize the ‘right’ of self-determination. How would private violence machinery or a private court system do this? You would just be under the unregulated control of those more powerful than you; that doesn’t seem like a community of self-determination to me. Furthermore, who would implement a private court system and why would anyone bother adhering to it..? All you’re doing is taking governmental aims, privatizing them and in turn destroying all pervious regulations, rules and laws that help keep our society intact.

 

Problem: The conceptualization of property, and differentiating between who owns what.

Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court systems.

 

Once again you’re completely contradicting the purpose of dismantling what we know as the government to begin with. I saw that you mentioned we have to have certain prerequisites, ie a majority of people that would have to willingly adhere to these privatized court systems. Firstly, why would anyone adhere to these systems? You’re assuming social pressures would manifest themselves into individuals following these court rulings – Ha, because that works so well in contemporary law, right? As I’ve attempted to explain before, property itself isn’t inherently ingrained within our psyche. It’s a social discourse which has been shaped throughout a historical dimension. Stop assuming individuals inherently understand what property is, property rights are, etc. Private property requires regulation - there is a reason that governments have and continue to thrive for centuries, you should think about that.

 

The problem you present is indeed a problem between theory and practice, but I maintain that it is not a fundamental problem with human nature. Human nature as an absolute is not a sufficient explanation for 21st century culture and society. Society and culture have proven to have the ability to alter human behavior beyond "human nature", so much so that human nature as biology alone suggests isn't consistent with praxis in societal theory.

 

To go back to what I proposed in the very beginning

 

1. Every human being has a right to self-determination and control over his self and property.

 

If you don't agree with this, you won't agree with the fundamentals of anarchism.

 

If you do agree with this, if you want to live in a society that upholds these values, you are already an anarchist inside.

 

It would seem that the society does not uphold these values today, and here is the actual gap between theory and practice (as, I suggest, we would otherwise live in an anarchy), but to be an anarchist is to accept these values and wait for the day that the society will too, insofar as waiting is the right way to advance towards the goal.

 

I understand what you’re suggesting insofar as if we accept these specified values than you’re potentially an anarchist at heart. In reference to human nature, I still believe contemporary western thought disallows our ability to actualize this political system of anarchism (I also believe that certain virtues are universal amongst all humans; ie A core of egocentricity/Desire for power, etc). What’s somewhat ironic is that I would consider myself an anarchist in theory haha, but I’m also a realist by nature and seriously wonder whether this system of politics will ever be a reality.

[Nippon]

What gives anyone the right to do anything? You're assuming we have some form of metaphysical rights granted upon us.

Where exactly do I assume this in my text? I assume nothing of the kind. Whereas

You suggest in your next paragraph that these rights stem from some social contract or notions of law

...is what I said.

 

Our current discourse of rights, as with property, has been constructed through social structures and regulated by the government and various moral contracts (Humanistic values, religion, etc). The rights that you have are carved through legalities and enforced through a complex system of rules, regulations and laws upon which we abide by. What I believe is that these various systematic ways of approaching our understanding of rights must be regulated by some form of objective entity, in this case the government.

 

If you believe that the government is an objective entity, you fail to see the problem with the current system. If the government indeed was as complex and objective as the billions of interactions between individuals in the society, there would be no practical problem with government authority over individuals and the moral problem would be debatable. But I regress; the government is far from an objective entity capable of functioning as effectively as individuals in their interactions with each other. This is the practical problem; the market outcome is always the most effective result for all participants, with the possible exception of a market failure, yet we have government intervention in nearly every interaction. The conclusion to draw from theory is that government intervention in itself mostly causes a lack of efficiency in individual interactions, so why do we accept government intervention?

 

If we have rights, are they not objectively universal to all humans, regardless of geo-political structures, moral hierarchies, religious teachings, etc. If this is the case why are these rights not instated fully in practice for all humans, where do they originate and what evidence validates this theory to begin with? Once again governments are necessitated to regulate our 'social world' practically.

 

No. As I said, these rights are a result of social contracts between individuals which in turn are a result of the geo-political structures, moral hierarchies, etc. I have no evidence to present to you that these rights are accepted by all humans, however, the claim that they are is the prerequisite for the existence of an anarchist society. In my conversations with people, they usually uniformly accept the claim that noone else has the right to violate their person or their property, this has led me to believe that anarchist thinking is much more common than could be expected by looking at the current state of our society.

 

I feel as though you're suggesting that we can only have a radical system of anarchism or a completely authoritarian dictatorship lol. There can be some middle ground here where government realistically improves and works towards the betterment of its citizens. Our notions of rights have originated throughout a historical dimension, being shaped and warped by different philosophical shifts in thinking, new scientific advancements, religious influence throughout the centuries and their different value/virtue systems, social structures and so on.

 

This was not my intention. There might be a certain claim for authoritarian interference to individual interactions (mostly due to market failure), but anarchism should be the firm moral and practical platform that we build those authoritarian institutions on, if and only if necessary.

 

At one point it was a believed 'right' to own slaves; if that is false than why has the universal right to self-determination and control not been practiced in reality? Imo, this suggests an egocentric human core that has been shaped by our desire to maintain the best possible life, and manifested through social, religious and political systems. We owned slaves because they were not human according to some, or because social hierarchies simply accepted this form of perception as normal and natural.

 

Slavery is clearly against the fundamentals of anarchism. Notice again, that accepting those fundamental rights is the prerequisite for the actualization of those rights* and as such the prerequisite for an anarchistic society; without them, there can be no anarchism.

 

*This is due to symmetry. The right to self-determination and control over ones property can not be actualized without a similar notion of the right from other members of the society.

 

Whatever it may be the conceptualization of rights is fundamentally no more than a very dearly accepted human virtue, and because of the subjectivity of these virtues we must have some form of regulation that transcends privatized communities. This form of thinking is simply impractical for contemporary society, we are not ready for these differing varieties of privatized communities because the powerful would rule over the weak apathetically (Though many would argue this happens right now anyways lol, so whats the difference really?)

 

To rule over someone by force is clearly against the fundamentals of anarchy(as presented in 1) which, again, are the premise for an anarchistic society. You may argue that it is in human nature to rule and to be ruled, but this is not an argument against anarchism, which only argues against use of force when creating such power-relations. That is; people can still rule and be ruled, but only by making a contract between individuals.

 

The governments legitimacy lies within the social contract we form with them, just as you're implying privatized communities would form social contracts.

 

We do not make a social contract with the government. Government authority is imposed upon us on birth. Not to mention that it is absurd to say that we could form a contract with 'the government' (who are we forming a contract with?)

 

We need no moral justification - Morality, as with the government and other social structures is ever changing and being impacted by many different things throughout a historical dimension. It’s necessitated by human nature and the sheer complexity of the current social systems: From globalization to economic systems, cherished values and social hierarchies, our personal lives and macro-communities, the government oversees, regulates and intersubjectively links all these different social structures that effectively aids in running our everyday lives. It simply is not realistic to radically scrap all systems of governments that has such a clear social discourse in one swoop; we wouldn't know what to do with ourselves because the government is so intertwined in our day to day lives. [...] Herein lies the need for government: The complexity of the social world and its monolithic impact on our lives.

 

You say that government regulation aids us in running our everyday lives. I would like to hear an example of this, an example of how the individuals in a society could not in principle organize some part of their interaction without government interference. For now, I'll deal with the arguments you presented so far:

 

What would happen to our monetary systems?

We would use a form of money that the individuals doing transactions could trust to hold its value. Just as we do now.

 

How would we enforce laws?

Notice that there would be no laws as we know them now. Only accepted situation for the use of force according to 1. is to protect one's right to self-determination over one's self and property.

 

What would be our means of trade

How would this be different?

 

who would regulate this

By definition: noone and everyone.

 

and how would countries run themselves?

By definition there would be no countries in the current sense of the word.

 

Problem: Society may not collectively agree on a set of universal rights.

Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court system.

 

Uhm, I was under the impression that the whole objective in dismantling the government was to actualize the ‘right’ of self-determination. How would private violence machinery or a private court system do this? You would just be under the unregulated control of those more powerful than you; that doesn’t seem like a community of self-determination to me. Furthermore, who would implement a private court system and why would anyone bother adhering to it..? All you’re doing is taking governmental aims, privatizing them and in turn destroying all pervious regulations, rules and laws that help keep our society intact.

 

The right to self-determination includes the right to use force to defend that right. Undoubtedly people would use private security services to defend their family and property, when necessary. Notice, once more, the prerequisite for an anarchistic society; that a sufficient amount of people accept the individual rights as presented in 1. In such a society, any attempt to violate these rights would be socially condemnded and more importantly, give any individual in the society the right to interfere on behalf of another.*

 

*Again due to symmetry. The rights as presented in 1 are only actualized in an absolute sense; that is, violation of the rights of one individual is a violation of the rights of any other individual in the society.

 

Problem: The conceptualization of property, and differentiating between who owns what.

Your solution: Private violence machinery/Private court systems.

 

Once again you’re completely contradicting the purpose of dismantling what we know as the government to begin with. I saw that you mentioned we have to have certain prerequisites, ie a majority of people that would have to willingly adhere to these privatized court systems. Firstly, why would anyone adhere to these systems? You’re assuming social pressures would manifest themselves into individuals following these court rulings – Ha, because that works so well in contemporary law, right? As I’ve attempted to explain before, property itself isn’t inherently ingrained within our psyche. It’s a social discourse which has been shaped throughout a historical dimension. Stop assuming individuals inherently understand what property is, property rights are, etc. Private property requires regulation - there is a reason that governments have and continue to thrive for centuries, you should think about that.

 

You misunderstand me. A majority of the people in the society would have to accept the rights as presented in 1. They would not have to, and indeed could not, accept any system of courts that violates these rights. This defines the principles by which the court or justice system could work, although the practical solution could be something we can't imagine.

 

People would adhere to these systems to operate in a given area of society. I will give an example of how such a system could work. Say you wanted to go into the business of wine manufacturing. You have a property that you have inherited from your family. To enforce your right to this property, you have decided to purchase two kinds of services. First, you have purchased security services from a security agent X to protect your property from harm. Secondly, you have purchased legal services from a legal agent A that operates in the area your property is in. Legal agent A and other legal agents B and C defend the rights of property owners in the area. In cases of conflict between property owners, they work to solve the conflict by buying court services from the court agent Z. The system, of course, operates on trust. But unlike in the current system, the market participants would only have their own interest in mind. Thus, legal agents would provide to their customers by defending their rights as well as possible and the court agent would provide to its customers, the legal agents, by maintaining objectivity. The system is flawless because it works on self-interest which is the primary motive of all the individuals in the interaction.

 

I understand what you’re suggesting insofar as if we accept these specified values than you’re potentially an anarchist at heart. In reference to human nature, I still believe contemporary western thought disallows our ability to actualize this political system of anarchism (I also believe that certain virtues are universal amongst all humans; ie A core of egocentricity/Desire for power, etc). What’s somewhat ironic is that I would consider myself an anarchist in theory haha, but I’m also a realist by nature and seriously wonder whether this system of politics will ever be a reality.

 

I do not hold any fantasies over human solidarity or altruism. Anarchy is flawless because it is based on self-interest. Co-operation in social interactions is often in the best interest of all participants*, this is why, provided that the participants are rational, the participants find the best solution for everyone without government interference.

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma

[Su lc l De]

WALLS OF TEXT OMFG!

 

Its so nice to see a decent debate on these boards, rather then the usual unintelligent arguments that go on here.

[Administrator]

tldr;

[Reilly]

I do not hold any fantasies over human solidarity or altruism. Anarchy is flawless because it is based on self-interest. Co-operation in social interactions is often in the best interest of all participants*, this is why, provided that the participants are rational, the participants find the best solution for everyone without government interference.

 

I'm no longer interested in carrying on this debate to be completely honest, though it was intellectually stimulating which is more then I can say about 95% of the crap I read on here lol. I'll just leave with this, the majority of humans are not rational, and they will do what furthers their own ends before considering the needs of others. This is a huge reason a political system structured around the principles of anarchism will fail imo, and why we require some form of regulation.

[Nippon]

I'm no longer interested in carrying on this debate to be completely honest, though it was intellectually stimulating which is more then I can say about 95% of the crap I read on here lol. I'll just leave with this, the majority of humans are not rational, and they will do what furthers their own ends before considering the needs of others. This is a huge reason a political system structured around the principles of anarchism will fail imo, and why we require some form of regulation.

 

If the majority of humans are not rational, how does a system based on the rule of the majority work towards gains for the society? What I mean with rational is the ability to follow one's self-interest in a given situation, nothing more. How do we have rational regulation, if the majority that creates these laws is not rational? All evidence points out that humans are normally very much rational in their day-to-day activities.

 

Very well, thanks for the discussion, I'll wait for another person to challenge my argument.

[Reilly]

I'm no longer interested in carrying on this debate to be completely honest, though it was intellectually stimulating which is more then I can say about 95% of the crap I read on here lol. I'll just leave with this, the majority of humans are not rational, and they will do what furthers their own ends before considering the needs of others. This is a huge reason a political system structured around the principles of anarchism will fail imo, and why we require some form of regulation.

 

If the majority of humans are not rational, how does a system based on the rule of the majority work towards gains for the society? What I mean with rational is the ability to follow one's self-interest in a given situation, nothing more. How do we have rational regulation, if the majority that creates these laws is not rational? All evidence points out that humans are normally very much rational in their day-to-day activities.

 

Very well, thanks for the discussion, I'll wait for another person to challenge my argument.

A system of self-interest and determination will never materialize, there are too many individuals with conflicting ideals on how the world should be run. You're completely disregarding the complexity of social affairs and how broadly politics encompasses our everyday lives. Anarchism will never work, people are not smart enough to self-determine their own lives while everyone else attempts to do the same. If it fails in all practical senses I see no need to discuss whether or not we have the right to do so, because it's not going to happen. Anyway, I'm actually done now.

[Nippon]

A system of self-interest and determination will never materialize, there are too many individuals with conflicting ideals on how the world should be run.

 

People can have conflicting ideas on how the world should be run, as long as they acknowledge that they have no right to force those ideas upon others (which was the premise for my argument).

 

You're completely disregarding the complexity of social affairs and how broadly politics encompasses our everyday lives. Anarchism will never work, people are not smart enough to self-determine their own lives while everyone else attempts to do the same.

 

I acknowledge the complexity of social affairs, the complexity of social affairs is the reason why government intervention always leads to market failure, whereas free markets lead to an efficient solution.

 

If it fails in all practical senses I see no need to discuss whether or not we have the right to do so, because it's not going to happen.

 

I'm not a huge fan of the moral debate either but I raised the issue, because I suspect that if I didn't, someone else would have.

 

Anyway, I'm actually done now.

 

Later ;)

[SwanRonson-]

na bruv