Is Anarchy the Answer? With Davi Barker

JohnPhoenix
reply to post by Panic2k11

 

Anarchy is Not mob rule.

Democracy is mob rule. (the majority rules the minority)

incorrect. Democracy would form a system, anarchy would work off the whim of the population and is, therefore, more susceptible to mob rule.

reply to post by Notheycant


Anarchy is the worst thing possible. Only the strongest most brutal people would survive. In a dictatorship which is the polar opposite at least the weak have a chance.



Anarchy is the lack of the rule of law or the far right on the political spectrum. Complete control or more laws is the far left on the political spectrum.

reply to post by SubTruth


In what dictatorship did the weak have a chance?

about 175 million people died in the hands of government in the 20th century
&
about 8 million people died in the hands of people


Whats more evil?

Notheycant
reply to post by SubTruth

 

In what dictatorship did the weak have a chance?

about 175 million people died in the hands of government in the 20th century
&
about 8 million people died in the hands of people


Whats more evil?

I said more of a chance......In anarchy the weak would have no chance.......Context.......Please do not put words in my mouth.

reply to post by SubTruth


It depends on what "weak" you are referring to. In general term as the above other objecting poster stated the weak in power and resources will have an equal chance to enforce their freedoms without fear of an organized repression.

Now if you are speaking of the weak, as in those that can't do for themselves the deficients, the sic etc to a point that may be true it depends on how others see the problem more than their own actions in fact purer motivations to solve said issues should come to bare some one may not like (like some form of eugenics, even in today's systems we have them for example abortion is an eugenic action of sorts as is artificial insemination) but look for example on the caring for the elderly as evolved in most western nations (and their importance in the family structure).

It is hard to foresee how would it balance but with exacerbated individualism we would probably also observe a higher lever of personal responsibility in all aspects of human life.

reply to post by Notheycant


That is not a fair comparison but I let it pass since it is not my place to defend of trust governmental numbers

reply to post by Notheycant


Much better, Josh

The imaginery is totally superfluous: if you would broadcast this on radio, no information would be lost IMHO. But at least it's not overly distracting, you ditched the desk and TV set, good. And the presentation of the imaginery now is at a much calmer pace, good too, as fast sequences of seemingly unrelated "funny" animations tend to distract from the message. It was done in a more respectful manner too: instead of making your guests look like yapping fools, you now made yourself look like one. Mind you, I'm not saying you ARE a yapping fool, merely that you made yourself look like one using the Pythonesk animation.

Minor, but important detail: the sound quality still isn't great. There are HUGE differences in audio level, which you can simply iron out using tools like Audacity etc.

The screenshot demonstrates my point. Audacity BTW has a standard feature 'normalize' which irons out these peaks. You may want to look into it.

reply to post by Panic2k11

No it isn't it is the absent of any ideology beyond individual freedom to do as you want.

It is an ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

No it is not, even if capitalism in part requires ownership rights and in an anarchic society owning things can be daunting as they require individual enforcement of that ownership.

It is (anti-capitalist). In anarchism the only private property that is recognized is personal including a home, car etc. In anarchy you are only free to do as you like if you are not exploiting another person, group or land/water in a way which renders it useless for others.

Capitalism clashes with anarchy at every point. Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron.

It would be extremely hard to get a complex legal system off the ground and working when the premise is that you are free to do as you like, some soft of things could be kept under control but only if generally seen as beneficial and so enforced by everyone.

It's utterly impossible currently to implement anarchism, most anarchists including myself don't advocate for anarchism to go into effect at this time. What we do is advocate for less authority and less exploitation where we can, such as with the government and with the business elite, this is an adaptation or laying the ground work but we don't call this anarchism, we recognize that it is not. Anarchism can only be what I said in my previous post, we don't redefine the word to describe what we advocate for and currently politically fight for or protest against.

Not really anti-government but an extremely reduction of to regard everyone as a personal state, as with today it would be possible to establish a mutual agreed bureaucracy to keep somethings going but since all the states would be at the same level only very significant goals would get any traction. (as above)

Yes anti-government. What you are describing is an adaptation.

You are cherry picking some characteristics that are under anarchy only dependent on the individuals needs

Not at all, rather it is you that is trying to adapt the word to mean something that is desirable to you.

reply to post by Kali74

It is an ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

It can't be defined as a concise set of ideas or ideals, beyond what I said, anarchy has only that common ground over all possible interpretations (I talked about this in an earlier post). Now if you are talking about a more defined particular interpretation (that is nevertheless not consensual) then I would have to agree with you that it may be accepted as an ideology (under an umbrella labelling that would cover many more).

It is (anti-capitalist). In anarchism the only private property that is recognized is personal including a home, car etc. In anarchy you are only free to do as you like if you are not exploiting another person, group or land/water in a way which renders it useless for others.

In the general form it is not. Maybe in the particular form you are referring, in anarchy not even private property is recognized if you can't enforce your ownership, The bit about exploitation also is not generalized, even if anarchist tend to give more respect to other individuals freedoms there might be anarchic systems that revoke that view in certain conditions even in idealogical grounds (for example anarchy is not a cure against discrimination, racism, patriotism or for example in the betterment in regard to a commune/group, even as punishment for a crime. It all depends on the circumstances on on the definition of anarchism and exploitation that is fallowed. There is nothing beyond property rights that can't be implemented under an anarchic system, capital and the pursuit of economic advantage has many forms, most complex trade (that is not direct barter can be defined as a form of exploitation especially if it involves third parties and is not immediate).

Capitalism clashes with anarchy at every point. Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron.

No and a reticent yes. Liberalism in the form of free markets can be defined as anarchic if only restricted to economic transactions (that by definition refute state intervention on trade), but that correctly explained in a previous post by Echtelion (that I stared) it is a forced collage.

It's utterly impossible currently to implement anarchism, most anarchists including myself don't advocate for anarchism to go into effect at this time.

I don't agree in the general term anarchism exist immediately after a state collapses, but due to their lack (or slow initiative to organize) it rapidly evolves (or devolves, depending of the perspective ion something else) as a better organized group takes control and imposes a different system. As I said before anarchism can only exist on a long duration in a sparse populated area where there are no social pressures nor a rush to own resources (that include the people).

But I get that you are defending a sublimated view of anarchism, but you ought to find a better definition to it to separate it from other distinct views or generalizations. In you limited anarchic system what you say may be valid but it is not a commonly accepted definition of anarchism (the one I'm utilizing, and I made that distinction clear in my first post on the thread).

reply to post by Panic2k11


To keep it simple. How can a word that literally means anti hierarchy embrace anything that depends on hierarchy?

reply to post by Kali74


Capitalism does not require hierarchy and anarchy does not exclude hierarchy, for example a family unit is an hierarchic structure (whatever way it is organized or whatever recognition is given to individual sovereignty). As I said before egalitarianism is an objective of anarchy but how it is recognized and empowered depends on the participants of the system (it will not be a commonly shared view but a general aspiration, if not only to protect your own freedoms).

In an case I agree that anarchy is adverse to hierarchy (as it will be hard to organize and gain stability) but all systems (computational, logic and even linguistic systems require a level of hierarchy to maintain order and coordination/sense). How that hierarchy is organized and maintained is what defines the level of egalitarianism, the more versatile, symbiotic and transient it is the less chance it will have to be abused.

reply to post by Panic2k11


A free market doesn't require hierarchy, capitalism does. Can you provide an example in which capitalism does not require hierarchy?

reply to post by Kali74

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged

From Capitalism@Wikipedia

I don't see anything that requires a complex hierarchy in the above definition. With the exception of the notion of ownership and the improbability of complexity to arise in a lose anarchic system as to permit advanced projects that in my view can only support a society in a pre industrial stage. To get above that the system itself would have to be changed into something else that scales... (as I defended before)

There are so many interpretations of anarchy. That right there tells me it wouldn't work. It's just more politics. Everyone has their belief on how things should work.

The video I must say was annoying to say the least. But once I minimized it, it was listenable.

reply to post by Panic2k11


capital accumulation
competitive markets
wage labor

That is a hierarchy.

reply to post by Kali74

capital accumulation competitive markets wage labor That is a hierarchy.

I don't see no hierarchy in letting my kid put valuable lumps of metal into a piggy-bank, outbidding my neighbour in trading 3Kg of rice for a basket of eggs or giving 3 apples a day for my nephew to get the cow from the fields... (notice also that I said that hierarchy is hard to build but possible, in any case I don't see your problem with capitalism under an anarchic system, the problem with capitalism is that if kept unchecked it takes a life of its own, exacerbating competition piggybacking on human greed and lack of scruples especially if its objectives takes primacy in the social structure)

I don't know if anarchy is the answer - but neither is playing by the rules of the system people say is broken.

It's like hating how a board game operates but you try to use the rules of the game to try and change the game all together - it doesn't work.

You can't fix something by using broken parts. If you don't care for the entire machine - you need a new machine - not new gears in the same machine.

Maybe we should ask ourselves if people are afraid of it first? And where did the fear come from? Who benefits from people being afraid of anarchy?

This is always a very thought provoking topic - thanks

Edit to add: IMO this country would benefit more now from carnivorous dinosaurs than from any politician, red or blue, in existence.

Anarchy is a transition phase when the current regime collapse. It is not a government. From Anarchy u can turn into a Constitution Republic like America, or if someone sells hope and change like Fidel Castro u may get Communism or Fascism.

reply to post by Panic2k11


You're describing free market not capitalism.

amfirst1
Anarchy is a transition phase when the current regime collapse. It is not a government. From Anarchy u can turn into a Constitution Republic like America, or if someone sells hope and change like Fidel Castro u may get Communism or Fascism.

Actually communism is the transitory step between having a state and going stateless (anarchy), though it is not a necessary step.