A case for Anarchism

[Landon Caeli]

So YOU believe that YOUR good works and behavior qualifies YOU or someone like you to right the sin nature? LOL!

Are you seriously laughing about something I didn't even say..?

 

[Landon Caeli]

It has nothing to do with being shameful or needing higher authority.

It is about the state monopoly on violence (war, law enforcement, prohibitions on individual violence). When there is no state then enforcement of possession, etc., devolves to small scale actors or individuals. Everyone must use or threaten violence to protect their "rights" and there is no overall freedom.

Fortunately, we have mechanisms for making the state responsive to the will of the people. They are called "democracy".

What a disgrace humanity is then.

...I don't feel like I'm that way at all. Am I alone in this world?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What a disgrace humanity is then.

...I don't feel like I'm that way at all. Am I alone in this world?

I'm not even sure what this means. It looks like a lament that things can't be some sort of Utopia. Well, they can't. So what. Perhaps we should just lay down our silly Utopias and try living in the world as it is; as we are.

Can you make a case for anarchism, or is it just a lament?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've been studying the concept of Anarchism, and the more I study it, the more intrigued I am by it. First of all, I'm bored with the left/right tit-for-tat nonsense, of political rivalry's fighting for dominance, because it reminds me of a prison house gang rivalry in it's most glorified form.

I am weary of it for the exact same reasons.

So what would a society look like if people took on a more anarchist attitude? I think it would bring peace and harmony.

Nah! It would bring on different tribalisms and more personal animosities of neighbor vs neighbor.

So let's discuss here how to spread the concept of Anarchism as a positive thought experiment, and the good things that could come from a more Stateless, non-Authoritarian type attitude, where art and intellectualism and peace reign naturally and equally amongst the population without the need for the forceful hand of the government. Let's discuss how to make humanity responsible on it's own, without the need for state guidance.

I do not want to totally rain upon your parade. So I will try not to. Not totally.

I think anarchy only works with the starting point of a virtuous people. But that is true of democracy as well. The less virtue the less well democracy will work. Which is why democracy in the USA is in real trouble and is sliding into tribalism. Anarchy will have the same problems. And then all of Israel will beg for a king.

A more stateless and less authoritarian system would involve subsidiarity, the idea that things should be done and decided upon as locally as possible. That might be achievable even in the current environment, but it would need lots of people tired of their tribes. Tired enough to put tribalism second to neighborhood. I'm not sure we are there yet, but political tribalism is more and more becoming an obvious failure.

I was a Democrat before I was a Republican. I see some good in both of those parties, but the pro-death desire of Democrats turned me. When Trump basically bought the Republican Party that turned me too. I'm hoping the American Solidarity Party can launch. In it's position for subsidiarity it stakes out a minimal role for government. Sure some government is needed, but more local than state and more state than federal. Families and churches and neighborhoods and local organizations should be who you turn to first. The feds should be far far away from most of our lives.

So, I think subsidiarity has a chance if enough people can get out from their party tribalisms. And I think we need more virtue if we are going to avoid chaos, cities burning, and murder rates climbing even higher. I don't see a solution to us becoming more virtuous though, not as a society as a whole.
A little background information:
A Brief Explanation of Anarchism | Issue 128 | Philosophy Now[/QUOTE]

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why isn't it practical? Is it because humanity is shameful, and *needs* to be subjected to a higher worldly authority?

Even the first successful communists, that is the Benedictines, had a rule for living. It was short but compulsory and the communes resulting from the Rule of St Benedict survive 1500 years later.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So why isn't our faith and religion enough? Why not congregate in a Christian area, where Christian laws are upheld - not at a "state" level but as a community of Christian believers having common interests?

Are you proposing a 'Benedict Option'?

 

[chevyontheriver]

What a disgrace humanity is then.

...I don't feel like I'm that way at all. Am I alone in this world?

Unhappily we are all bent. Some badly, but all at least somewhat bent. All of us have the ability to do some good, but also to do really rotten things. On our own we are a disgrace. Only in Jesus can we do better, and then we still have our bad habits to ruin the good we would want to do but don't do. Government requires virtue, and that is what is in short supply. Kings or dictators or presidents or judges or neighborhood councils or total anarchy - if there is insufficient virtue it all collapses anyway and we have mayhem. Like two summers ago. And like some expect this summer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Are you proposing a 'Benedict Option'?

The Benedict option is not 'funny'. It is serious stuff, and to some degree in some places it may work. But it is a pulling back to concentrate on the survival of a community of faith removed as far as necessary from the secular world. It is about covenanted Christian communities adapting to survive in a hostile world. It makes some sense.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

The Benedict option is not 'funny'. It is serious stuff, and to some degree in some places it may work. But it is a pulling back to concentrate on the survival of a community of faith removed as far as necessary from the secular world. It is about covenanted Christian communities adapting to survive in a hostile world. It makes some sense.

It is funny to me because it was and is a futile attempt of mankind to bring in utopia through their own "good" works. Have you not seen the scandals involving the "community of faith"? It may start out good but I have heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm not even sure what this means. It looks like a lament that things can't be some sort of Utopia. Well, they can't. So what. Perhaps we should just lay down our silly Utopias and try living in the world as it is; as we are.

Can you make a case for anarchism, or is it just a lament?

I don't know why thinking outside the box is so targeted. It's the easy road I guess, building simple, obvious cases against ideas such as Anarchism. It would be difficult to Steel-Man it - but much more interesting.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

I don't know why thinking outside the box is so targeted. It's the easy road I guess, building simple, obvious cases against ideas such as Anarchism. It would be difficult to Steel-Man it - but much more interesting.

Let us examine the Word.
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know why thinking outside the box is so targeted. It's the easy road I guess, building simple, obvious cases against ideas such as Anarchism. It would be difficult to Steel-Man it - but much more interesting.

Your OP claimed some sort of positive benefits of anarchism, what are they as they haven't been stated?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Your OP claimed some sort of positive benefits of anarchism, what are they as they haven't been stated?

Not exactly. This is a mind expansion experiment. I asked people in the OP to share and contemplate *positive* qualities of Anarchism.

You guys are supposed to be helping me make my case.

 

[jacks]

Perhaps we just aren't comfortable without a leader or leaders to rule us. We've always liked our "kings".
1 Samuel 8

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Perhaps we just aren't comfortable without a leader or leaders to rule us. We've always liked our "kings".

QFT

 

[Joy]

Mod Hat On

Some Posts and Responses
have been Removed
in
Thread Clean

Please stay on Topic with no Flaming or Goading​

Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.

Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

Please remember to post in accordance with
the Flaming and Goading Rule​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not exactly. This is a mind expansion experiment. I asked people in the OP to share and contemplate *positive* qualities of Anarchism.

You guys are supposed to be helping me make my case.

First you're going to have to tell us what those are, since as of this point I can't contemplate anything good that could come out of anarchism. Help us out here.

 

[Landon Caeli]

First you're going to have to tell us what those are, since as of this point I can't contemplate anything good that could come out of anarchism. Help us out here.

Thing is, with Anarchism, the idea is always immediately shunned, almost instinctively, as the article in the OP states. But philosophical thinkers such as Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon saw it as a way to peace and freedom, rather than hatred and violence.

Perhaps it's worth a look to see what they had to say.

 

[public hermit]

First of all, I'm bored with the left/right tit-for-tat nonsense, of political rivalry's fighting for dominance, because it reminds me of a prison house gang rivalry in it's most glorified form

I'm with you on this point.

what would a society look like if people took on a more anarchist attitude? I think it would bring peace and harmony.

I think it depends on the set of people. Some folks already have a more anarchist attitude, i.e. they have no regard for authority structures or laws. Some of those will do fine because they recognize we must work together to flourish. Some will just take advantage of others, as they already do (these would be both capitalists with gross sums of money as well as the desperately poor who believe the only way forward is to act like a rich capitalist lol).

So let's discuss here how to spread the concept of Anarchism as a positive thought experiment, and the good things that could come from a more Stateless, non-Authoritarian type attitude, where art and intellectualism and peace reign naturally and equally amongst the population without the need for the forceful hand of the government. Let's discuss how to make humanity responsible on it's own, without the need for state guidance

Education in the liberal arts that nurtures a willingness to work toward the common good without being compelled. It would also take, I think, an established body of people who show by example that it can work. Ultimately, some structure and authority has to be in place because some folks just won't go along to get along, I don't think. But those structures could be much less coercive and restrictive that what is often the case, imo.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thing is, with Anarchism, the idea is always immediately shunned, almost instinctively, as the article in the OP states. But philosophical thinkers such as Godwin, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon saw it as a way to peace and freedom, rather than hatred and violence.

Perhaps it's worth a look to see what they had to say.

Again, you're still not telling us anything about what might be good in anarchism. Adding a list of obscure philosophers does not help.