What's Communism?
- Thread starter Chief Broham
- Start date
I've never seen a definition of anarchy that limits it presence to certain parameters on a quality of life scale.
anarchism = a state of society without government
anarchist = a person who advocates anarchism
Anarchism is not a description for a state of personal behavior, it is a noun describing a state of society, one that lacks a particular component. That component is not dependent on the amount of serial killing or nose picking going on.
The onus would be on you to show how one who kills, or picks their nose too much, CANNOT be an advocate for a society without government. A husband can be an alcoholic and still be in favor of their wife and neighbors not drinking or doing heroin.
Anarchism is not a synonym for voluntaryism.
Everything-Voluntary: Voluntaryism Transcends Anarchism
I never said it was about quality of life.
An Archy is "without rulers" not "without government"
See, this is the problem you run into with your "Moxie googles for facts in arguments" approach.
One implies the other. There are certain components which should be, or should not be present, in a state of "without rulers".
2nd and 3rd degree logical reasoning is very difficult for a lot of people. I don't know if some people just "have it" or if it is something that can be learned. Most people do not "have it". They are only able to offer tone deaf analysis as you have, not able to associate means and ends into a coherent sequence.
Again, law of identity stuff, which is also something a lot of people struggle with.
People can advocate anything they want. It doesn't mean anything they advocate makes sense.
I don't see the relevance.
Absolutely it is, because they imply the same conditions. You cannot have Voluntarism without Anarchism, and you cannot have Anarchism without Voluntarism.
Back to law of identity again.
If you seriously want to understand what I am talking about, PM me and I will make time to explain it. If you're just going to keep Googling up facts and definitions, this conversation never had a chance to go anywhere anyway.
You can't goad or shame me into replying because I don't care.
It is funny that you try.
You're the one who is going to be miserable, screaming at the top of your lungs, and having people point and laugh at you again in 4 years. And 4 years after that. And 4 years after that. And 4 years after that.
Referencing "Utopia" has nothing to do with quality of life? Uh OK.
ruler
1. One, such as a monarch or dictator, that rules or governs.
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who rules or commands
Parents "rule" over and "command" their children, but they are not "rulers" going by the above definition, which is the one most people use in relation to anarchy. If not, then parenting is not able to take place under anarchism.
We do not live in a society without government, every inch of land on earth is ruled over by one, yet voluntarism constantly takes place all over.
Teleport 100 violent criminals to an uninhabited planet and the moment they get there anarchy exists. If they start punching each other in the face, anarchy still exists. If they spend weeks fighting, but nobody becomes a ruler, anarchy still exists.
Thanks man, but I guess I'll just keep riding the derp train on this one.
2. A straight strip or cylinder of plastic, wood, metal, or other rigid material, typically marked at regular intervals, to draw straight lines or measure distances
Actually, parents should not rule or command over their children. Their children are not property, and should not be treated like they are.
If you leave children to make their own mistakes and learn their own lessons, they turn out just fine.
All of the problems we have today stem from a propertarian attitude towards children. Considering that, it's not a surprise that governments treat their citizens as property.
Yeah, words can have various definitions. If we are going to count any definition for "anarchist", then there are not just ones that allow for violence, but also those that list it as a necessary component.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
If we go back towards the root :
ar·chon (ärkn, -kn)
n.
1. A high official; a ruler.
2. One of the nine principal magistrates of ancient Athens.
I saw a story awhile back about a 3 year old who got outside in the middle of the night and was wandering down the road. If their parents had been awake, they shouldn't have prevented the kid from doing that?
Yes, I'm sure "all" problems stem from that one thing, lol.
What is it with this forum and black or white blanket opinions?
It says something about fear that the best you could conjure up is an image based on a FICTIONAL story.What's the worst that could happen?
It's still substantially better than this (these are actually real)
or this
It takes an adult to do those things. Yay! Adults!
You got it.
I'll say it again. Definition games are a waste of time. You can argue until you're blue in the face about which definition is applicable, or what the definition of a word is, but what you can't do is discuss the subject matter itself.
That's because to discuss the subject matter requires more than Googling. You have to understand the topic.
We can call anarchism "moxiedoesntknowhowtoargue" and we can call voluntarism "purplemangobuttmonkey" and it wouldn't change the nature of the ideas involved.
So if you want to debate definitions, you'll have to find someone else to play this pointless and circular game with you. I am only a little interested in discussing ideas. I am not interested in discussing dictionaries, thesauri, wikipedia or phonebooks with you.
There is a movement in anarchism towards peaceful parenting to address this.
And violent/coercive parents (the model for the maternal/paternal/nanny state) don't fit your above definition because the definition is poor. Thanks for proving my point!
You're making my argument again.
No, that's not anarchy. You're referring to anarchism as a condition without institutions, but anarchy is a condition without violence because as someone uses violence, they assume a position of control and dominance over the person they attack.
Again, your definition is poor, and continuing to make examples to prove your definition, which is the state educated definition (anarchy bad, scary) only makes my argument. Again, not interested in that discussion but you're welcome to keep arguing my side indirectly.
And that isn't unexpected. Thinking, and challenging ideas is work. Easier to Google for arbitrary facts and use them as a proxy for understanding.
Yeah, what a flawed concept that whole parenting thing is. Who needs it? Must just be a construct devised by the government just to control us sheep.
You guys take this shit too far. I'll agree many parents are over-protective of their kids, and the governments have too much power, and so on. However, you guys just want to blow everything up, and wipe the slate clean. Totally rid ourselves of all government, and now apparently parenting too.
Childhood is training for serving the state later in life. Violence is used in both circumstances to teach obedience.
And looking around these threads, it seems to work really well.
Oh look, another Kiopa_Matt false dichotomy post, who would have seen that coming?
Government grows out of the same mentality that people use to rationalize beating and abusing their children.
It's for their good. Daddy knows best. They just won't do what I want them to do!
No one wants to blow anything up. We just want people to stop using violence against each other. To behave ethically and morally. To behave like adults with some modicum of self control, emotional discipline, compassion and intelligence.
Yeah, we want to blow everything up.
I laugh when you guys argue against peace towards one another. Then you turn around and make some social justice point in another thread. Cognitive dissonance. You do it, UG does it, and there are probably another dozen guys who insist we can't strive for a peaceful society because that's CRAZY, but man the world is fucked up and that's wrong...
Parenting doesn't require physical dominance or violence, or are you arguing that it does?
Government grows out of the same mentality that people use to rationalize beating and abusing their children.
It's for their good. Daddy knows best. They just won't do what I want them to do!
Here is the false dichotomy again. If we oppose violence, we must want to end everything. Can't you see how childish your posts are when you do this? That, or it demonstrates a profound lack of imagination.
No one wants to blow anything up. We just want people to stop using violence against each other. To behave ethically and morally. To behave like adults with some modicum of self control, emotional discipline, compassion and intelligence.
Yeah, we want to blow everything up.
I laugh when you guys argue against peace towards one another. Then you turn around and make some social justice point in another thread. Cognitive dissonance. You do it, UG does it, and there are probably another dozen guys who insist we can't strive for a peaceful society because that's CRAZY, but man the world is fucked up and that's wrong...
Then you're going to drive yourself totally insane by constantly pushing this ideology, and hoping for it to become a reality, because it's impossible.
Do you believe in evolution, or that God created the world in 6 days? I'm assuming evolution, which means us humans come from monkeys, right? Show me a herd of gorillas where anarchy works, and I'll start to take you more seriously. No leaders, no rulers, no violence, and everyone gets along peacefully, including when foreign gorillas come by.
IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
And we're made up of pretty close to the same DNA, so what on earth makes you believe we're capable of the NAP, and world peace? Like it or not, accept it or not, us humans are pretty primitive, and it's not going to change within our lifetimes. Evolution just doesn't work that fast.
It's the only thing that keeps me sane. The belief that one day, mankind will evolve to see everyone as an individual worthy of being treated humanely, just as it took us thousands of years to give up slavery, or to recognize the equal humanity in women.
It hasn't been fast or easy, but it is inevitable, because with our technological growth, if we can't evolve our minds and ethics, we're going to destroy ourselves.
I'm closer to a Deist. Evolution is problematic for me, and I don't indulge in mysticism.
It doesn't happen but we're not gorillas. Gorillas don't write poetry, or hand down property, or paint, or build skyscrapers, or journey into outer space.
It's only a matter of perspective. Like people saw blacks as slaves 300 years ago, and they don't today.
People saw women as chattel slavery 250 years ago, and they don't today.
People would raise their children with extreme violence, and today, we keep violence against our children very secret because no one wants to admit they hurt children.
It takes time Matt. You have to believe in something, and care about something, to have the conviction to stick with something. I think most humans are useless mouthbreathing idiots. But, given enough time, the right incentives and a few small cultural shifts, we can start to recognize the violence we rationalize in society, and perhaps start to develop attitudes against it.
It won't be in my lifetime, and if we get life extension technology, it might take even longer because dumb people who believe in being slaves to violence will perpetuate the status quo longer, but that's not what I am focused on.
I simply want to find people of a like mind, and collaborate with them on understanding why we're like this, and what we can do to advance a change from it. People who are interested in trying to live a moral and ethical life NOW, despite the external pressures of violence and peer ostracism (says a lot about our world that you can be ostracized for wanting peace, but hey, I see it here daily).
YOU, not me, did your Mr. Aggression routine calling people "embarrassing" and whatnot because YOU had a problem with them applying a commonly accepted DEFINITION of a word. Society, and also you, have given anarchy a simple definition :
"without rulers",
NOT "without rulers, but also conditions X, Y and Z."
If you have your own strict personal definition, that's your prerogative, but it's obnoxious to call other people names for using a definition that has been around for hundreds of years or to demand that they only use your definition.
That was the "subject matter" I was commenting on. Neither I or anybody else had said that communist anarchy was rational, possible, made sense or anything like that. You as usual acted as if people had already made extreme black or white arguments to that effect.
You can easily find people to debate on Reddit or wherever to be the "black" to your "white" when it comes to anarchy, labor unions, nose picking, or the multitude of other topics that you seem to crave having extreme polarizing arguments over.
Anarchism: Unremorsefully anti-capitalism and anti-state
"Anarchism is a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community."
There you go, it has 31,088 readers, 4 times more than /Anarcho_Capitalism
Koko.org - Koko's World - Art
Aggression, properly understood in a libertarian context, is the initiation of physical force. Even if I called you a totally retarded moron, that wouldn't be aggression under the NAP.
Society is an abstraction, and as a methodological individualist, I don't believe any argument that "society" can act. Individuals act.
I understand this is hard for you to understand. Logic isn't easy for some people. It doesn't come naturally. That's probably why you lean heavily on definition games and googling counterfacts instead of articulating complete arguments of your own.
"Without rulers" implies all sorts of things. These are second, third etc order logical progressions. To be without rulers, means there can be no government. It means there can be no social inequality. It means there can be no centralization of law. Polycentricity. etc etc etc.
It's not enough to understand the definition, but what the consequences (the idea) of the system or paradigm would mean.
I just use anarchism the way anarchists use it. It's autistic how you keep going back to the definition instead of the idea. The definition, or the word we use is irrelevant as long as we all understand the concept being discussed.
Also, the argument to age is a logical fallacy. A definition being old doesn't indicate any sort of quality.
Also, I am obnoxious with you because I don't like you. I think you're either incredibly stupid or a truly irritating troll. Either way, you're not someone I would like to get to know better.
It's not even anarchy.
I am not looking to debate, and I certainly never look to debate with you. However, your posts are great for the purpose of demonstrating bad argumentation, and thus, I have a hard time resisting the pull to reply because you serve up nonstop 88 mph fastballs right down the center of home plate.
If you didn't post some nonsense Google result as mock content, I'd be disappointed. You do one thing, and that's present forgettable information without context or understanding, and you do that very well.
