Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sim Al-Adim]

The rule of law keeps people in line, for the most part.

You've got to understand how the government works. Their "product" are laws and policies. The "currency" of the politician is peer-recognition. If a politician is getting peer-recognition, he's getting paid. But he's getting paid only for peer-recognition. It's a type of reward for the policies he makes. And politicians have to keep making new crap up all the time. Otherwise their position is a joke. But making new policies all the time is just an absurd euphemism for building a better mouse trap.

The Politician and Government are above the laws. They have immunity and the power to make the laws. They have the money and peer recognition to stay in power. But that depends on one thing. What is that one thing? It is whether or not someone distributes their product!

So, do you still want to live in a police state; under the make-work program of people who have more power and immunity, money and peer recognition than you because you ever will, because you refuse to question the system? Because you abide by their laws out of fear of the very agency that distributes their product? Consider that money buys peer recognition, immunity buys money, and power buys immunity. That multimillionaire corporations NEVER follow the same rules that you and I do. It's a hypocrisy.

Anarchy levels the playing field. It's the best form of justice.

[Wayne92587]

Boundlessness, Absolute Freedom exists only for an individuality having no relative, numerical value. Living alone in the Emptiness,

An Individualized that exists in part as part of a greater whole will not be allowed to be Free to do as they will,

-- Updated November 27th, 2014, 9:01 am to add the following --

Sorry, the word Individualized should read Iñdividual

[Theophane]

Anarchy levels the playing field. It's the best form of justice.

Anarchy is the abandoning of justice as we know it. It erroneously assumes that everybody can be trusted to do what's right without having to be threatened with punishment.

[Logic_ill]

I'm not sure it is entirely erroneous, Theo. People may be trusted to do what's right if we didn't have a system that probably although, inadvertently encourages us to do what is wrong sometimes. Then again, I cannot entirely blame a system but also the fact that the human organism may be so diverse along with each individual and his/her circumstances that it may be difficult to identify that which is "right" because some might simply not have the capacity. We have different strengths and weaknesses, and we will assess that, under the scope of our paticular perspectives and circumstances.

How to seek coherence in a world with so much human (biological and doctrinal) diversity? The most we can do is try to be understanding.

[Sim Al-Adim]

Anarchy levels the playing field. It's the best form of justice.

Anarchy is the abandoning of justice as we know it. It erroneously assumes that everybody can be trusted to do what's right without having to be threatened with punishment.

Really? Inherent Anarchists love destruction. They know ahead of time that most of their work will involve destroying false edifices of corrupt, authoritarian ruler ships.

In a world of corruption, it is hypocritical and incisively more evil to pretend as if you're a justice-loving government, when in fact you are a government that serves "justice" as a means of controlling the population.

Without the threat of punishment, you can trust everyone (in theory) to do what is wrong. Burning down buildings; disrupting the Capitalistic flow of trade that has everyone lining up at the doors of Walmart on their days off. Burning down Walmarts on your days off - these are the exemplifications of an anarchist's codes. They aren't "good" or "just" for profiteers; distribution and sale monopolies; police states or governments - but they are good for society.

[ScottieX]

A lot of these debates just come down to that there is no actual agreement on what is good. So there is no definitive answer to the debate anyway. Although I do thing that anarchism is likely to result in a world that would be unpleasant for most of us, but that in itself could be "good" to some people - maybe we "deserve" it.

[Sim Al-Adim]

A lot of these debates just come down to that there is no actual agreement on what is good. So there is no definitive answer to the debate anyway. Although I do thing that anarchism is likely to result in a world that would be unpleasant for most of us, but that in itself could be "good" to some people - maybe we "deserve" it.

"A world that is unpleasant for most of us."

Isn't that the world most of us live in?

[Londoner]

Anarchy is the abandoning of justice as we know it. It erroneously assumes that everybody can be trusted to do what's right without having to be threatened with punishment.

Does it necessarily?

Sometimes the suggestion seems to be that anarchism is a sort of 'hands-off' idea. If we had no laws or authority then everything would somehow come-right of its own accord and stay that way.

But one could instead understand anarchism as an ideology in itself; that an anarchist system would be maintained because the people believed in anarchism as a positive thing and sought to maintain it.

I am part of a family, I also belong to various societies and have an informal network of friends. In these areas, as in most areas of my life, I never encounter a policeman and do not require one to regulate my interactions. I would suggest it is because I do not see these groups as hierarchical; if there is a situation where it is necessary that I defer to somebody as leader I will do so because I do not see their interests being any different to mine.

Such social arrangements are not 'hands-off'; on the contrary everyone involved takes a lot of effort to maintain it by doing things, like making sure everyone is included, expressing mutual appreciation, sharing, volunteering to help each other with no expectation of money reward.

I am describing a 'system' that most humans already participate in and enjoy. Isn't anarchism simply the idea that it should be the norm for all human relationships?

[Theophane]

What you describe is a Utopia. It cannot be achieved with any system of government or ideology due to human depravity, and for the same reason (human depravity) there can be no Utopia without government, either. Burning down a Wal-Mart doesn't do anything to fight corporate corruption-- it's just destruction for the sake of destruction. It's just wanting to see the world burn.

[Belinda]

What you describe is a Utopia. It cannot be achieved with any system of government or ideology due to human depravity, and for the same reason (human depravity) there can be no Utopia without government, either. Burning down a Wal-Mart doesn't do anything to fight corporate corruption-- it's just destruction for the sake of destruction. It's just wanting to see the world burn.

I agree with Theophane, but not with his attributing unreflecting acts of destruction to 'depravity' which within Christian theology is said to be caused by original sin. I attribute unreflecting acts of destruction to lack of reason, not to original sin. There is no need for the God hypothesis when we are considering the best political system, because the God hypothesis needs faith to uphold it, whereas reason is available to all; and if there were a good God, He would want us to help others to reason.

Life is not fair and therefore men of goodwill should try to make it fairer. To do so men of goodwill need to help deprived people to the freedom which reason brings.

[ScottieX]

"A world that is unpleasant for most of us." Isn't that the world most of us live in?

Maybe... but it doesn't seem so bad to me. I suppose the world is particularly bad for political philosophers (especially those on the fringes) because they are constantly focusing on what it could be ideally and it always falls short. Happiness being a function of the comparison between the options you imagine and the reality you experience in some regard...

-- Updated November 28th, 2014, 3:02 pm to add the following --

I am describing a 'system' that most humans already participate in and enjoy. Isn't anarchism simply the idea that it should be the norm for all human relationships?

If you are willing to overlook the force applied to you in those scenarios then we do live in an anarchy.

-- Updated November 28th, 2014, 3:05 pm to add the following --

The police are anarchic too because you don't HAVE to do what they say, they will just apply strategies to try to encourage you to cooperate if you don't the same as an anarchist neighbour might.

[Theophane]

I agree with Theophane, but not with his attributing unreflecting acts of destruction to 'depravity' which within Christian theology is said to be caused by original sin. I attribute unreflecting acts of destruction to lack of reason, not to original sin. There is no need for the God hypothesis when we are considering the best political system, because the God hypothesis needs faith to uphold it, whereas reason is available to all; and if there were a good God, He would want us to help others to reason.

Depravity, lack of reason, call it what you will. Reason is not necessarily benevolent or pro-social, if it's nothing but the ability to think effectively.

[Sim Al-Adim]

What you describe is a Utopia. It cannot be achieved with any system of government or ideology due to human depravity, and for the same reason (human depravity) there can be no Utopia without government, either. Burning down a Wal-Mart doesn't do anything to fight corporate corruption-- it's just destruction for the sake of destruction. It's just wanting to see the world burn.

Wal Mart beats out small business. If you burn down a Wal Mart (hypothetically speaking) at least two things come of it. Consumers will have to go to other places to buy their goods (possibly local grocers). And Wal Mart loses money. Well, they're insured for damage like this. But, they're going to lose a few bucks.

The important effect is the outcome that people will realize that the process of being a consumer doesn't end with the Wal mart business model. Wal Mart's need to burn to the ground. I've seen acres and acres of farm land, entire grazing pastures "licked up" by Wal Mart. The majority of the land is parking space. Then Wal Mart; a few little chain stores; and A LOT of empty building space.

My problem is that corporate greed and the Capitalist world view destroys the fundamental simplicity of township life. Towns aren't meant to serve people according to the Wal Mart model. A real town centre is a few blocks of streets with some real family owned businesses on the first floor levels. People walk the sidewalks and do their consumer behavior.

Wal Mart's should burn to the ground. Why would you let a filthy rich corporation tell you what social existence should be? Can't you see this model is being forced on you?

[Theophane]

I agree with everything you say about Wal-Mart and its business model, but I must insist that greed cannot be undone by arson. After everything is ashes, the greed remains.

[ScottieX]

WalMart's should burn to the ground. Why would you let a filthy rich corporation tell you what social existence should be? Can't you see this model is being forced on you?

Burning buildings is an application of force just as much as offering a service is. There is no possible end to being constantly enraged at that board definition of force.

The important effect is the outcome that people will realize that the process of being a consumer doesn't end with the Wal mart business model.

That sounds like a idea it would take a generation to imprint on a population not just a single burning of a Walmart. The thing they could take on with a single event is that burning businesses is a good way of removing larger competition and driving up costs to place them in a better negotiating position in relation to customers.

Wal Mart's need to burn to the ground. I've seen acres and acres of farm land, entire grazing pastures "licked up" by Wal Mart. The majority of the land is parking space. Then Wal Mart; a few little chain stores; and A LOT of empty building space.

Walmart displaces a number of stores and does what they do but just packs all the stock really close together. So if you burn a Walmart to the ground would not a lot more good land get concreted over to make new shops and new car parking spaces as a larger town center pops up to replace it?